Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON UNDERGROUND (GREEN PARK) BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

European Community Enlargement

Mr. Roger Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the enlargement of the European Community.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): Good progress has been made in negotiations with the four EFTAn applicants for membership—Norway, Sweden, Austria and Finland. But some difficult issues remain to be settled, particularly in the areas of agriculture and regional policy. Decisive progress is needed in the next few months if we are to meet the target of entry into the Community by those four states by 1 January 1995.

Mr. Evans: I welcome my hon. Friend's statement. Given the gathering clouds in the east and in Russia, and given the imperative of extending the blessings of liberty, free trade and open markets to as wide a Europe as possible, will my hon. Friend confirm that the British Government are possibly at last succeeding in persuading an increasing number of our European partners of the benefits of an expansion of the European Community?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Yes, I confirm that it has always been a British priority to open our doors to applicants from all European states, provided that they can fulfil the requirements and obligations of membership. That is why we were pleased that recent European Council conclusions have endorsed the possibility of eventual membership by states, including those from central and eastern Europe in due course.

Mr. Enright: The Minister did not mention Cyprus among the applicants. Cyprus has received initially a favourable response from both the Council and Commission. But, in reverist mode, will the Minister think for one moment of how he will get rid of the Turkish occupying army if Cyprus is accepted into the Community?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that the Cypriot application for membership has received favourable consideration, although it is not imminent and is certainly not being considered in the same time scale as the states that I mentioned in my first answer. I should also remind him that the partition of the island is not a prohibition on eventual accession. That matter is to be reconsidered in 1995.

Mr. Streeter: I welcome my hon. Friend's earlier comments about enlargement. Will he give a view about the prospects of success of the application of Malta to become a member of the European Union?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Yes, we welcome the prospect of accession by Malta. Preliminary discussions are already under way. Certain adjustments will be needed in the economy of Malta so that it can take on the responsibilities of membership, but we recognise that there are important historic connections between this country and Malta, and, for that reason as well, we believe that Malta's eventual destiny lies in Europe.

Sir Russell Johnston: Will the Minister confirm that he sees no conflict between the concepts of widening and deepening in the Community?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Certainly not. We believe that a wider and larger European Community will also be a stronger one.

Mr. David Nicholson: My hon. Friend will know that there will be a widespread welcome in this country for the remaining Scandinavian countries joining the European Community. Will he do all that he can to encourage the Community in due course to include the former Baltic states of the Soviet Union, particularly Estonia, which I visited a couple of months ago, and which is the most go-ahead of all the countries of the former Soviet Union?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: That prospect is somewhat further away. I can confirm, however, that we wish to see a free trade area concluded with the Baltic states, including Estonia. That is part of the negotiations with the Scandinavian EFTA states, which already have substantial free trade with those other countries.

Mr. Rogers: Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) about Cyprus's application for membership of the European Community, I understand that on 20 December the Council of Ministers will consider a request from the republic of Cyprus to appoint a European Union monitor to the discussions between Cyprus and the occupied territory of northern Cyprus, which will be held in January under the aegis of the United Nations. Will the Government give a favourable response to that request and, in the Council of Ministers, ensure that a monitor is appointed?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We shall examine that proposal on its merits. The overriding need is to give a fair wind to the confidence-building measures that are being promoted by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Provided that the appointment of an EC observer does not conflict with those aims, we shall give it favourable consideration.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Has my hon. Friend seen the opinion polls in Scandinavian countries, which unfortunately show


a decline in the popularity of the view that they should enter the European Community? I hope that I am not being reverist by suggesting—[Interruption.] I hope that I am not talking balderdash or being reverist by suggesting that the European Commission should be working to demonstrate that the European Community—

Mr. Flynn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Points of order will be taken after questions and the statements. I shall call the hon. Gentleman then.

Mr. Bruce: The European Commission should be working to ensure that people realise that the Community can be to the advantage of the Scandinavian countries.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Each state must comply with and approve the eventual agreement in accordance with its own constitutional requirements. We believe that the kind of European Union that we are building is agreeable and attractive to the Scandinavian states. We hope that they will find a way to accede in the time scale that I have outlined.

Palestine National Authority

Mr. Galloway: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what discussions he has had with the Chairman of the Palestine National Authority; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I held substantive talks with Yasser Arafat, Chairman of the Executive Committee of the PLO, yesterday and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister saw him today. Yesterday, we discussed the implementation of the 13 September Israel/PLO agreement, to which we are giving both political and economic support.

Mr. Galloway: Will the Secretary of State accept my —and I believe the whole House's—congratulations on his and the Prime Minister's meetings yesterday and today with the Chairman of the Palestine National Authority and on at long last recognising the leadership of the Palestinian people? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if there is a failure, on 22 December, to implement the accord signed in Washington, as there was on 13 December, there is a grave risk of the area disintegrating into even further and greater chaos? Will the right hon. Gentleman convey that fear to the appropriate quarters at this critical juncture?
Might we be able to afford to the Palestinian people something that they greatly admire—the tradition of public service and an impartial civil service—in which we, at least until recently, gloried in this country? Will he make that expertise available to the Palestinians in the period ahead?

Mr. Hurd: Yes, it is important that the agreement should be honoured. Yes, we will give what help we can. For example, we have offered to train senior policemen in the new Palestinian force and Chairman Arafat accepted that offer yesterday.

Mr. Batiste: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the only way in which a viable peace will be achieved in the long term is if the two sides reach an accommodation

between themselves? Outsiders can be helpful and supportive, but it must be for the Palestinians and Israelis to reach an agreement with which they can both live.

Mr. Hurd: That is exactly right, and that is why it is such a breakthrough that they are discussing those matters face to face, in detail.

Mr. Janner: May I join in welcoming the visit of Chairman Arafat, whom I shall see later this afternoon with a Jewish delegation? Will the Secretary of State do everything in his power to help the parties to promote the peace process, first, by helping the Palestinians economically and, secondly, by recognising the deep and real sensitivities of the Israeli people for the security of their land?

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for joining me and Chairman Arafat at lunch yesterday, thus lending fresh respectability to the occasion.
The hon. and learned Gentleman is perfectly right. There are two issues that Chairman Arafat explained to us as points of difficulty. One is the boundaries of the new Jericho—part of the agreement—and the second is who should control the border points on the Jordanian and Egyptian borders. Those are difficult matters; they are difficult for Israel and they are difficult for the Palestinians. We have some ideas on how they might be resolved. My hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) was quite right; in the end, the two have to resolve the difficulties together. It is in the interests of both that they should do so.

Mr. Fabricant: Was my right hon. Friend able to raise with Mr. Arafat the question of the Israeli hostages who are being held by terrorist groups? I am thinking in particular of people such as Ron Arad.

Mr. Hurd: We raised that matter in various places and at various times when we thought that it would be helpful to do so. My hon. Friend is right: there is also the matter of the many Palestinians still held in Israel, which is one of the matters that the two sides are discussing. I hope to go to Israel, to the occupied territories and to Jordan during the Christmas recess. I will do so in the spirit that my hon. Friend suggested—trying to be helpful when we can on practical matters of technical assistance and judging for myself how things are going.

Dr. John Cunningham: The Foreign Secretary's comments are welcome, as was the visit of Mr. Arafat to Britain yesterday and today. In his discussions, Chairman Arafat raised with the right hon. Gentleman, as he did with my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition and myself, the question of an international presence in the West Bank and the Gaza area—the occupied territories—to help the transition. Has the right hon. Gentleman formed a view of that proposal? Does he believe that it could make a positive contribution to the smooth transition?
The Palestinians have proposed that they should be given financial assistance to help the Palestinian Economic Council for Development and Reconstruction to engage British and European economists and industrial expertise to guide and advise them in the redevelopment and reconstruction of the occupied territories. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the Government make a positive response, as the amounts of money involved are relatively modest?

Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman's presence at the lunch yesterday put its respectability beyond doubt.
On the right hon. Gentleman's first point, Chairman Arafat has raised the possibility of international observers helping to deal with the frontier question—the problem of border controls, which I mentioned—alongside Israelis and Palestinians. No formal proposition has been made, because there is no agreement between the two sides on that point, but I certainly do not exclude our participating in such an effort, which would be on only a modest scale, if that proves to be necessary.
On the right hon. Gentleman's second point, we need to look at all the ideas so that we can help, with the things that we do well, the Palestinians in their new needs. I have mentioned police training, which is one thing, and economic advice would be another. The European Community, to which, of course, we contribute 16 per cent. of the 20 mecu voted for the first year to help the Palestinians, has been asked to keep the universities going. That is very important, and a large part of that European money to which we contribute will go for that purpose.

South Africa

Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had about progress towards democracy in South Africa.

Mr. Hurd: We fully support the transition to non-racial democracy in South Africa, and we keep in close contact with the main political leaders. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister held talks with President de Klerk on 8 December, and with Mr. Nelson Mandela on 12 October. My right hon. and noble Friend Lady Chalker of Wallasey visited South Africa last week and met leaders of all the main parties.

Mr. Canavan: Will the Secretary of State take the opportunity to congratulate Nelson Mandela and President de Klerk on being presented with the Nobel peace prize at the weekend? Will he further congratulate them on managing to reach an agreement on a constitutional settlement to end apartheid?
Does the Secretary of State agree that there are no grounds for complacency between now and next April's elections? Will he use whatever influence he has to try to persuade people such as Chief Buthelezi to accept the constitutional settlement? Would not that undoubtedly help to bring about a peaceful transition towards a democracy based on one person, one vote in a unified South Africa?

Mr. Hurd: The transitional executive council, as the hon. Gentleman certainly will know, held its first meeting in Cape Town on 7 December, and Lady Chalker attended it. That was a big step forward, and the next major step will be the holding of the first democratic elections on 27 April next year.
The hon. Gentleman is right that it is important that those who have held themselves aloof from the process—I think particularly of Inkatha—should find a way to associate themselves with it. No one is asking them to eat words or to go back on stands that they have taken. It should be possible, and it is highly desirable, for all those parties who have held aloof for one reason or another to find a way to participate.

Mr. John Carlisle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the progress towards democracy in South Africa has been much encouraged by sporting contacts between South Africa and ourselves and the rest of the world? In that context, will he send a message of best wishes to the England A cricket eleven, which has had a highly successful tour, despite certain medical problems? It has already played a game in Alexandra, a South African township, and is to play another tomorrow in Port Elizabeth. It is doing a splendid job, and I am sure that it would be grateful if my right hon. Friend sent his encouragement.

Mr. Hurd: The team might be grateful, and I am certainly glad to do so. I went to Alexandra last year with cricket equipment for a local team playing on a ground that it was putting together. I am glad to hear that Alexandra is continuing its devotion to cricket.

Libya

Mr. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Libyan Government directly or indirectly about Libyan citizens held in United Kingdom prisons.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): There have been no such discussions.

Mr. Bennett: Does the Minister accept that, in pressing the Libyan Government to hand over people who are accused of atrocities in this country, it is important to show that Libyan nationals have received justice in this country? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the case of Hosni Farhat, who was convicted of attempted murder? Much of the evidence that was given at his trial is now considered to be suspect and, in addition, he received a sentence that reflected the political situation between Britain and Libya at the time, rather than the severity of the offences that he committed. He was denied the opportunity to appear at his appeal or to be legally represented.
Is not it important that such cases are investigated speedily by the British Government and that any injustice is put right before representations are made to the Libyan Government to bring other people before the British courts?

Mr. Hogg: I am aware of the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I should not like to suggest that the offences committed were minor. This character was convicted on four counts of attempted murder and, not surprisingly, was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1981. He subsequently appealed, but the Court of Appeal refused him leave to appeal against the conviction.
I do not have a clue whether there are any grounds to doubt the validity of the conviction. The Court of Appeal thought otherwise, but if the hon. Gentleman has doubts I suggest that he raises them with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that Libya is one of the most offensive regimes in the world and that it ill behoves hon. Members to cast doubts on the fairness of British justice, which is much greater than that in most countries of the world?

Mr. Hogg: I agree that I certainly would not want to live in Libya.

Angola

Mr. Pickthall: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking through the international community to make the UNITA forces comply with the Angolan peace accords.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): We have been active in the Security Council, bilaterally with the Angolan Government and UNITA.

Mr. Pickthall: In view of the staggering number of deaths in Angola, estimated by the United Nations at 1,000 a day and by the Angolan Government at approximately 5 per cent. of the total population, will the Foreign Office ensure that our representatives at the United Nations Security Council meeting later today urge on the rest of the United Nations the necessity of the full implementation of the sanctions already in place and of a new package of sanctions? Does the Minister agree that UNITA has played cat and mouse with the United Nations for far too long and that the disaster that it is causing in that country warrants the strongest possible international action?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is perfectly true that there has been the most appalling suffering in Angola. The sanctions instituted in September have worked to a considerable extent. UNITA is now discussing matters and negotiating seriously. I believe that today's resolution will recognise that and, of course, will leave open the possibility of further sanctions should UNITA ever renege on the current negotiations.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend agree that a great deal of embololalia is talked about Angola, not least by the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall) and that there are faults on both sides?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I suspect that that is always true in great disputes throughout the world.

Mr. Worthington: The Minister did not tell us what the Government will urge at the Security Council. Will they urge the application of full sanctions? Was anything done in the Lusaka talks to invalidate the results of last year's elections? Furthermore, what action are the Government taking to stop the supplies of arms and oil to UNITA by the South Africans and by the people from Zaire?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The Government's position will be to argue that the sanctions introduced in September and the mandate of the United Nations Angola verification mission—UNAVEM—should be continued. We hope that the United Nations special representatives and negotiators will proceed with the negotiation successfully. We understand that some agreement has been reached between the parties, which remains to be implemented, but there will be a statement this afternoon or this evening from the United Nations Secretary-General.

Iraq

Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in representations over prisoners of war held in Iraq.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: This is an important issue and I have to concede that we have made jolly little progress. We raised the matter at every review of sanctions, most recently on 18 November. It is an important matter and we will continue to press it.

Lady Olga Maitland: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his answer. Will he join me in congratulating our right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) on his success in bringing back the detainees from Iraq? Does he accept, however, that this is not the end of the matter? Three and a half years after the Gulf war, prisoners of war are still held in Iraq, including 625 Kuwaitis. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that we should not lift sanctions on Iraq until the detainees have been released?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is quite right to pay tribute to the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath). What he did was extraordinarily helpful; the families of the prisoners will be extremely grateful to him. My hon. Friend is also entirely right to highlight the plight of the 627 or so Kuwaiti detainees. She can be assured that we will raise their plight with the Iraqis on every possible occasion. It is an important element in our contacts with Iraq that that country should comply in every respect with the mandatory requirements of the Security Council resolutions.

Mr. Flynn: Does the Minister agree that there are other prisoners of war in Iraq, including many Kurds and Shias? Is it not time that we should consider international action to prevent the terrible suffering that is caused by Saddam Hussein's relentless attacks on the Shias in the marshes?

Mr. Hogg: There are a number of prisoners of war—Kurds, certainly; Shia from the marshes; and Iranians. It is important that we do all that we can to ensure that Iraq and Saddam Hussein's regime do not continue to oppress their people. That is why we have no-fly zones in north and south Iraq. I should have some difficulty in telling the hon. Gentleman that there would be support within the Security Council for any more forward action in south Iraq.

General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

Mr. Milligan: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will report on progress in the GATT trade negotiations.

Mr. Hurd: I believe that we are nearly there.

Mr. Milligan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that later today we can expect some exceptionally good news, on a day of exceptionally good news? Seldom in the course of human history can so few have lost so much sleep in the interests of so many. Does my right hon. Friend agree also that GATT is likely to bring practical benefits to every household in Britain, with sharp cuts in food prices and


upwards of 400,000 new jobs over the next 10 years? When does my right hon. Friend plan to uncork the champagne?

Mr. Hurd: I hope that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will make a statement on that matter tomorrow. I have just returned from Brussels, where I heard Sir Leon Brittan—who handled the negotiations with great skill—report to the European Council. There are bound to be loose ends. As I left, there was still an argument or discussion in progress about Portuguese textiles. We have also been pressing for a better deal for our textiles. Such final pressures are inevitable, but I hope that it will be possible for Mr. Sutherland to announce in Geneva this evening that the Uruguay round has reached a successful conclusion, after seven years in which many successive British Ministers have worked extremely hard—when others had forgotten the issue—to help bring them to a successful conclusion.
My hon. Friend is right in the example that he gave. As a big trading and manufacturing nation, and as a nation of consumers, Britain stands to gain enormously—perhaps as much as any other country—from the success that is just about within grasp.

Mr. Gapes: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that although the Uruguay round and GATT are in the interests of the United States and of the European Community, countries in the southern hemisphere will view the agreement as damaging? It is estimated that Africa will lose $2,600 million by the year 2002. What steps will be taken to assist the poorest countries, which will be damaged by that process?

Mr. Hurd: I do not believe that they will be damaged. I am familiar with the argument, but it is a myth. The winding down of the multi-fibre arrangement over a period of time will benefit new textile producers, and the opening up of the Japanese market after years of total closure will be of huge benefit to rice producers—and so on, across the board. It is not a zero-sum game in which some are bound to gain and some are bound to lose. World trade expands —and under the impetus of such an agreement, it will expand a great deal faster than it otherwise would.

Sir Giles Shaw: Given that some products may have been taken out of the negotiations, what is the mechanism by which textiles, films or steel, for example, will be further pursued?

Mr. Hurd: A number of matters will be further discussed including elements of financial services and maritime matters, on which agreement was not possible on this occasion. Rather than hold up the total agreement, those issues were taken out for the time being. Some are important to us. I asked Sir Leon Brittan today about civil aircraft, aero engines and financial services. The replies and clarifications that I received were reassuring and confirmed our general belief that, for this country, the agreement will be of substantial benefit.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: We understand that one of the cornerstones of the agreement will be a substantial reduction in agricultural subsidies. How long will the agriculture industry, under the terms of the agreement, be given to adjust to the new circumstances arising out of the

agreement? Exactly when will we be given details of the agreement, and when will it be deposited in the Library of the House?

Mr. Hurd: I am sure that there will be an opportunity to debate the matter. The Prime Minister will make, I imagine, a fairly full statement tomorrow—that is to say, if the negotiations conclude in the way that we hope. Therefore I shall not answer the hon. Gentleman's question in detail, but I would say that it is common sense that there should be a wind-down in the total of exports of subsidised grain from Europe. It is difficult for farmers in some countries—perhaps in all countries—but I think that most hon. Members in the House believe that that is a movement towards common sense.

Yugoslavia

Mr. Wareing: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made towards the restoration of peace in the former Yugoslavia as a result of the most recent conference in Geneva; if the issue of the Krajina has been discussed; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: At their meeting with the parties in Geneva on 29 September, European Union Foreign Ministers emphasised the importance of a peace settlement. The subsequent peace talks have made some progress in clarifying positions. The European Council on 10 and 11 December agreed to maintain the pressure on the Serbs to make the further territorial concessions on the scale demanded by the Bosnian Government. The parties have discussed the situation in Croatia, where European Union Foreign Ministers have urged them to reach agreement on a ceasefire and confidence-building measures as a preliminary to a final settlement.

Mr. Wareing: Has the Minister noticed early-day motion 119 on the order paper? It is signed by Members on both sides of the House, and it deplores Croatian army atrocities in Croatia against Serb Villagers, and indeed in Bosnia Herzegovina.
Does the Minister realise that to many, many people in this country and elsewhere, it seems utterly ludicrous and far from even handed that there should be sanctions against Serbia, while at the same time the Croatian army, along With the HVO, is causing such turmoil, such as the destruction of the bridge at Mostar, and the atrocities that were committed in that area? What is the difference between Mostar and Sarajevo that we have sanctions against the Serbs but not against Croatia?

Mr. Hogg: I am aware of evidence of serious atrocities committed by the Croat forces, both from within the regular army of Croatia and, indeed, from within the Bosnian Croat forces. We have raised those matters very forcefully with the Croat authorities and Ministers from the Croatian Government and we will continue to do so. I can conceive of circumstances in which the international community might well wish to impose sanctions. I think that if there were an upsurge of fighting in the Krajina as a result of Croatian action that might be a matter of very profound significance in this context. I do, however, think that the hon. Gentleman would wish to keep in mind—it is a point of distinction—that we rely on the Split access for the delivery of humanitarian supplies and the maintenance of UNPROFOR troops.

Mr. Cormack: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that there are still Serbian forces present in Croatia, and that the prime responsibility for the killing and the carnage rests with Serbia? What will he do to impress upon President Milosevic that the creation of a greater Serbia by brutal aggression will never be recognised by the international community?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is right when he draws attention to the presence of Serb forces in Croatia. It is extremely important that we establish the basis for settlement within the Krajinas, and one of the things that have been made absolutely plain to President Milosevic is that he cannot expect a relaxation of sanctions until a proper framework for a ceasefire and modus vivendi in the Krajina has been put in place.

Mr. Macdonald: Does the Minister affirm that the international community has recognised Serbia as bearing the primary responsibility for the conflict and for the hideous atrocities in the former Yugoslavia? That affirmation has been made. It was made at the Edinburgh summit of the European Community; it has been made in numerous United Nations resolutions. Does he agree, therefore, that as long as Croatia continues to be divided, Bosnia continues to come under attack and Kosovo continues to be repressed, there can be no question of relaxing sanctions against the Serbian Government?

Mr. Hogg: As to responsibility for the outbreak of the war, I certainly agree that the Government of Serbia are primarily responsible. If one were trying to determine who had committed the most atrocities one might have some difficulty. The plain truth is that all sides have committed atrocities and the barbarism has been shocking.
As to forward policies, it is obviously essential that we promote an early settlement in Bosnia, not least because we otherwise face a calamity this winter. We must therefore ask ourselves and everyone else how best the Serbs—the Bosnian Serbs in particular—can be got to concede land. I can conceive of the relaxation of sanctions if there is a genuine ceasefire and implementation of the settlement and if the Serbs are prepared to deal with a modus vivendi in Krajina. That said, they will not be fully readmitted to the international community unless and until the problems of Kosovo and Vojvodina are also fully addressed.

Soviet Bloc Countries

Mr. Oppenheim: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on relations with former Soviet bloc countries.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Our relations with the states are excellent.

Mr. Oppenheim: Is not my right hon. and learned Friend a little ashamed of the position when, having preached the benefits of free and open markets to those countries for so long, just when they most need our help the European Community is refusing free access for their goods to appease a few cosseted, subsidised and vested interests, such as the European steel industry? Are we not at the same time refusing cheap goods to our consumers and setting a bad example to those countries? Bearing in mind our example, it is not surprising that they are beginning to reject open market democracy.

Mr. Hogg: I entirely agree with the main thrust of my hon. Friend's argument, that free markets and open access to them is of critical importance to underpinning the political reforms in the former Soviet Union and the central and eastern European countries. The British Government have been foremost in arguing the case for liberalising markets. We promoted the association agreements with the Visigrad group of countries and others and we are promoting the concept of free trade between the European Union, Russia and other countries from the former Soviet Union.

Mr. Hardy: The Minister may be aware that significant delegations from the former Warsaw pact states attended the recent assembly of Western European Union and that they were especially concerned to pursue security guarantees. Since their anxieties may well have increased in recent days, what meaningful and justifiable assurances or guarantees can western Europe offer?

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that those countries are concerned about security questions. We are not in a position to give guarantees of the article 5 type and nor is the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation or any of the states within it. We are planning to thicken the relationship between NATO and the countries within the former Soviet Union and central and eastern Europe. In that context, the concept of partnership for peace initiated by the United States is extremely welcome. It will form the basis of the discussions to be held at the NATO summit in January and, broadly speaking, it was welcomed at the North Atlantic Co-operation Council meeting in Brussels about 10 days ago.

Kashmir

Mr. Knapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans Her Majesty's Government have to assist in resolving the problems in Kashmir.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We have repeatedly urged India and Pakistan to resolve their dispute through bilateral negotiation. I welcome the recent announcement that talks will be resumed early in the new year.

Mr. Knapman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his careful reply and for his excellent speech during an Adjournment debate last week. Will he reconsider the position in Kashmir, where thousands of people have been slaughtered—probably tens of thousands during the past three to four years—as that is poisoning relations between two of our oldest allies, India and Pakistan? In addition, if the pressure for substantive early bilateral talks between those two countries fails, will my hon. Friend refer the matter to the United Nations, which first passed a resolution on the matter in 1947?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The best prospect at the moment is the resumption of talks, as my hon. Friend says. That is the way that we wish to be taken and we hope that there will be some progress. Of course, we have always made clear to the Indian Government our concern about human rights violations in Kashmir. There should be a dialogue and a political process in Kashmir, and an improvement in human rights there.

Mr. Madden: Does the Minister agree that lasting peace will come to Jammu and Kashmir only if any political settlement is acceptable to the overwhelming majority of the people living in that region? If that is the case, does he agree that representatives of the people of Jammu and Kashmir should be directly involved in any discussions on Kashmir that are convened between the Governments of India and Pakistan?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As I said to the hon. Gentleman during the Adjournment debate the other night, the participants in any discussions must be a matter for the two parties to decide. But certainly we have always urged and continue to urge on the Indian Government the need for a political process in Kashmir.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that when the two parties—the two Pakistani Foreign Ministers and the Indian Prime Minister—meet in January, they should make progress and that, above all, international observers should be allowed into Kashmir so that the rest of the world can see what is going on there?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My hon. Friend is right that people should go to Kashmir, and I have repeatedly urged that on representatives of the Indian Government. That is what we would certainly like to see.

Dr. John Cunningham: The Minister is right to welcome the news that India and Pakistan are to begin at Foreign Secretary level in January discussions on mutual problems, including the circumstances in Kashmir. Should not all friends of India, Pakistan and the people of Kashmir welcome that small but positive step forward? Was not it good news that the siege and occupation of the Hazratbal mosque in Srinagar ended without bloodshed?
We welcome the decision by the Government of the Republic of India to agree that Amnesty International should be given access to Kashmir to report on the circumstances that prevail there. Finally, I press on the Minister the need for the Government of India to be unequivocally told that the human and democratic rights of the people of Kashmir should be upheld in any settlement that may emerge.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is precisely because we respect the Indian Government as a democratic Government that we expect the rights of the people of Kashmir to be upheld and we are bringing pressure to bear on the Indian Government to recognise those important facts. I am glad that Amnesty International has recognised that there is positive progress in being able to go to India. I cannot confirm that Amnesty International has been invited to Kashmir, but it thinks that it will be able to visit the Punjab.

Azerbaijan

Mr. Colvin: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with Azerbaijan.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Our relations with Azerbaijan are in very good order.

Mr. Colvin: What action are Her Majesty's Government taking to bring about the implementation of the four Security Council resolutions relating to the conflict involving Azerbaijan and Armenia? Can we expect an official visit from the President of Azerbaijan, President

Aliev, next year? In view of the considerable business prospects for Britain in Azerbaijan—most notably, British Petroleum—and if the president is to visit this country, does not my right hon. and learned Friend think that there would be merit in a trade delegation to Azerbaijan under the Minister's leadership some time in the near future?

Mr. Hogg: I am glad to say that I have been to Azerbaijan twice. As my hon. Friend knows, we have an ambassador in Baku. The trade opportunities in Azerbaijan, especially in the oil sector, are large and important to us. My hon. Friend will know that an agreement has been signed and is currently awaiting the approval of the Parliament and the president.
Yes, I hope that we shall have an opportunity to welcome President Aliev here early next year. As for the war involving Nagorno Karabakh and Armenia, I believe that the way forward lies through the Minsk process. We stand strongly and firmly behind that process.

Mr. Hutton: In the light of recent developments in Russia, and the gains of the Fascist parties in the parliamentary elections, is it not important for the British Government to take immediate and urgent steps to promote full diplomatic representations in the new states of the former Soviet Union, including Azerbaijan? Is it not extraordinary that, several years after the break-up of the Soviet Union, we still do not have full diplomatic representation in many of those states?

Mr. Hogg: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was listening to my answer. I said that we had an ambassador in Baku. Perhaps he did not realise that Baku was the capital of Azerbaijan.

Sir Jim Spicer: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that when the people of Azerbaijan consider the example of Georgia, where we have seen direct Russian aggression, up to and including military intervention, they will be very careful before accepting any assurances given by the western powers at present?

Mr. Hogg: The present state of Azerbaijan is a cause of considerable anxiety to us all. We judge that there are many Armenian troops there, and it is important that they start the process of withdrawal. The Minsk process offers that prospect through a staged timetable, and I would say to the Armenians from Nagorno Karabakh and from Armenia, and to the Azeri Government, that it is essential that they work by, with and through the Minsk process.

Subsidiarity

Mr. Charles Kennedy: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress towards further subsidiarity since the coming into force of the Maastricht treaty.

Mr. Hurd: The Commission presented its subsidiarity report to the European Council on 10 December. We believe that it is a good start to a continuing process. The report calls for the repeal or simplification of some 25 per cent. of EC legislation. It covers 16 of the 24 items on the list that the French and British Governments submitted. Those include revision of the bathing and drinking water directives, the acquired rights directive, and the liability of service suppliers. One further item from the list has already been amended on those grounds, and the Commission is


pursuing two others. All legislative proposals put forward by the Commission must now be tested against the requirements of subsidiarity.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I thank the Foreign Secretary for that informative reply. Will he take the opportunity to confirm, as he has confirmed before, that the best guarantee of effective subsidiarity is probably federalism, as understood elsewhere in the Community, although the same definition is not understood in sections of this country? Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore continue vigorously to apply subsidiarity within the nations and regions of the United Kingdom, and confirm that the Conservative Members of the European Parliament have subscribed to a federal future, through their affiliation to the European People's party?

Mr. Hurd: I advise the hon. Gentleman not to start dabbling in the different meanings of federalism. He will find himself in deeper water than he supposes, as his leader did in Brussels last week. The arrangements within the United Kingdom, as within any other member state, are a matter for the individual state. That was made clear in the Birmingham declaration last year.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the repeal or reform of 17 European measures at the Council last week is the first vindication of the Government's stance on subsidiarity during the Maastricht debate? Does he also agree that, provided that the common agricultural policy is adequately reformed, we can foresee a significant decrease in the competences of the European Community and the Commission, to the benefit of every country in Europe?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is right. I did not entirely blame the more sceptical of my right hon. and hon. Friends who, when subsidiarity was first discussed in the House, dismissed it as a mere phrase, but we are now turning it into a reality. This is the beginning of a process that will be extremely important. We said that it would be important, and we are making it important.

Ms Quin: If the Government succeed in abandoning the bathing and drinking water directives, will the Foreign Secretary tell us what will happen to the green dowry of £1 billion that was given to water companies during privatisation specifically to bring our water up to EC quality standards? Does the Foreign Secretary appreciate that the British public will not forgive a Government who put party dogma before water safety?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Lady and the Labour party miss the point. The purification and cleansing of this country's water are matters on which she and her colleagues can reasonably press my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment; that is fine. We do not think that the Commission in Brussels should lay down detailed regulations on such matters—regulations, which are, incidentally, out of date. What is new is that the Commission agrees with that point of view.

Norway

Sir Thomas Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the recent visit of the Prime Minister to Norway.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The Norwegian Prime Minister, Mrs. Brundtland, visited London privately from 14 to 17 November. She called on the Prime Minister during that time and discussion covered the European Community, Norwegian accession and Norway's whaling policy.

Sir Thomas Arnold: During those talks, did my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister endorse Norway's role in the middle east process, and did he give similar support to Norway's peace initiative in Bosnia?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The Government have warmly congratulated the Norwegian Government on the mediatory role that they played in the Israeli-Palestinian breakthrough, and I further congratulated Mr. Holst, Norway's Foreign Minister when I was in Norway. That is only part of the way towards the comprehensive settlement that we still have to achieve.

Mr. Eric Clarke: Did the Minister raise with the Norwegian Prime Minister that country's whaling policy and condemn it for environmental reasons? Having said that, I have a great deal of affection for the Norwegian people because of the role that they played in the second world war and their great affinity with the Scottish nation.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We all feel the same way about the Norwegians. During the discussion between Mrs. Brundtland and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, Mrs. Brundtland described Norway's whaling policy. Our Prime Minister reiterated the British position and our support for EC legislation—the habitats directive and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species regulations, which amount to a de facto ban on commercial whaling. Anyone who wishes to see an end to Norwegian whaling should welcome the Norwegian accession to the Community in due course.

Falkland Islands

Mr. Shersby: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last visited the Falkland Islands to discuss arrangements for agreements with Argentina relating to fishing and oil exploration.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I visited the Falkland Islands from 12 to 17 November. During my visit, I discussed fisheries and oil with the Falkland Islands Government and elected councillors.

Mr. Shersby: In view of the decision of the Falklands Islands Government to pursue exploration for hydrocarbons in the area of the continental shelf, will my hon. Friend assure the House that as soon as the necessary legislation is forthcoming from the Falkland Islands, it will be followed by a prompt announcement on exclusive licensing arrangements?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We do not yet know whether there is any oil—at least, any oil of commercial quantities—in the Falklands waters. Two seismic surveys are under way and the results will be published in the early part of next year. Meanwhile, the Falkland Islands Government, assisted by us, are drawing up legislation with the prospect of a second exploration round, which may be announced next year.

Middle East

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Britain's support for the Washington accord on resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to the question asked by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway).

Mr. Townsend: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is vital to keep up the momentum of the peace process in the middle east and that there is a need to get Syria and Jordan involved as soon as we can? I welcome the support that Britain will give to the Palestinian police force. Will we be equipping it as well?

Mr. Hogg: I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend has said. [Interruption.] I thought that that was a tribute to my answer, but I see that it is not. It is important to keep up the momentum. Yes, the Syrian-Israeli track must be supported. Yes, technical assistance will be given to the

Palestinian police force. We will assist with training, and if we can find appropriate equipment, we will see if we can provide that as well.

Mr. Ernie Ross: Will the Minister of State ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when he visits Israel to impress on the Israeli Government the need to release the 10,000 Palestinian prisoners? When he discusses the issue with him, will he also offer to the Israelis, but especially to the Palestinians, some form of package to help to resettle the 10,000 prisoners in the occupied territories when they are released from Israeli gaols?

Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will have heard that question. Yes, indeed, the release of the detainees is an important part of the confidence-building process and of making it plain to the Palestinian community that there are positive benefits to be gained from the accord. The settlement of the detainees and their families is an important point and Chairman Arafat acknowledged that when pressing for a substantial area of land to be handed to the Palestinians as part of the Jericho region.

Ireland (Joint Declaration)

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about my discussions with the Irish Prime Minister.
As the House will be aware, the Taoiseach and I agreed a joint declaration this morning. Copies of the declaration have been placed in the Vote Office. I know that the whole House will wish to hear what lay behind this declaration and what it may mean for the future.
For the past 25 years, the people of Northern Ireland have suffered levels of violence that any civilised community would find intolerable. No community, and especially no part of the United Kingdom, should have to endure the murder and destruction that have afflicted the Province. That is why successive British Governments have sought to find a solution to these terrible problems. We must care as much about violence in Northern Ireland as about violence in any other part of the Union.
When the Taoiseach and I met at Downing street two years ago, we both agreed on the need to work together to try to bring about peace in Northern Ireland and in the Republic. We were both well aware of the pitfalls and dangers which have wrecked so many previous attempts, but we both knew that, after 25 years of killing, we had to make it a personal priority both to seek a permanent end to violence and to establish the basis for a comprehensive and lasting political settlement.
The declaration that we have agreed today shows the commitment of the two Governments for peace and democracy and against violence. Its objective is to set a framework for peace, a framework that reflects our responsibilities to both communities in a way that is fully compatible with the undertakings that we have both given and with the objectives of the talks process.
Copies of the joint declaration have been placed in the Vote Office. I urge all hon. Members to read it carefully. It deserves careful study. It has required detailed and painstaking negotiations between the two Governments. It addresses the concerns of both sides of the Community and it is totally consistent with the principles that this Government have repeatedly confirmed to the House.
It may help the House if I set out the main elements of the declaration. I will, where possible, quote directly from the text of the declaration so that there can be no misunderstanding about what it says.
First, paragraph 2 expressly reaffirms the British Government's commitment to Northern Ireland's statutory constitutional guarantee. This guarantees that, as long as a majority of the people of Northern Ireland wish to remain a part of the United Kingdom, the Government will uphold their right to do so. That pledge is rock solid. That is set out most clearly also in paragraph 4, which reaffirms that the British Government will
uphold the democratic wish of a greater number of the people of Northern Ireland on the issue of whether they prefer to support the Union or a sovereign united Ireland.
Later in that paragraph, the British Government agree
that it is for the people of the island of Ireland alone, by agreement between the two parts respectively, to exercise their right of self-determination on the basis of consent, freely and concurrently given, North and South, to bring about a united Ireland, if that is their wish.

This is a crucial sentence, and one about which there has been much misleading speculation. So let me repeat that it says that a move to a united Ireland can take place only
by agreement between the two parts respectively
and
on the basis of consent, freely and concurrently given, North and South".
This fully protects the position of the majority in Northern Ireland, and means that change could come about only with their consent.
In line with previous undertakings, the British Government also reaffirm that if a future majority in Northern Ireland desired a united Ireland, we would introduce the necessary legislation to bring that about.
For his part, the Taoiseach accepts in paragraph 5 that
it would be wrong to attempt to impose a united Ireland in the absence of the freely given consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland.
Later in the same paragraph, he accepts that
the democratic right of self-determination by the people of Ireland as a whole must be achieved and exercised with and subject to the agreement and consent of a majority of the people in Northern Ireland".
Those are important commitments by the Taoiseach which I know will be widely welcomed by the House. The House will also welcome, in paragraph 7, the Taoiseach's confirmation that, in the event of an overall settlement of the talks process,
the Irish Government will, as part of a balanced constitutional accommodation, put forward and support proposals for change in the Irish Constitution which would fully reflect the principle of consent in Northern Ireland.
The joint declaration fully backs the three-strand talks process involving the main constitutional parties and the two Governments. It says that it is the two Governments' aim
to foster agreement and reconciliation, leading to a new political framework founded on consent and encompassing arrangements within Northern Ireland, for the whole island, and between these islands.
I believe that the passages that I have quoted, and the other language in the joint declaration, set out a clear framework under which differences can be negotiated and resolved exclusively by peaceful political means. But that can come about only if the men of violence end the killing and commit themselves to the democratic process. The joint declaration sets out the way in which this can be brought about.
Paragraph 10 says that both Governments
reiterate that the achievement of peace must involve a permanent end to the use of, or support for, paramilitary violence. They confirm that, in these circumstances, democratically mandated parties which establish a commitment to exclusively peaceful methods and which have shown that they abide by the democratic process, are free to participate fully in democratic politics and to join in dialogue in due course between the Governments and the political parties on the way ahead.
Let me make it plain on behalf of the British Government what that undertaking means. If there is a permanent end to violence, and if Sinn Fein commits itself to the democratic process, then we will be ready to enter into preliminary exploratory dialogue with it within three months. But, first, it must end violence for good.
I understand the fears and concerns of Unionists about the prospects of the British Government's entering into talks with Sinn Fein. This period has been a worrying and uncertain time for them. Although they have the primary interest in seeing an end to violence, they are rightly concerned lest this be achieved by selling out the fundamental constitutional principles which the


Government have always upheld. If they fear that, then they should be reassured by this declaration. It reaffirms the constitutional guarantee in the clearest possible terms. The Taoiseach fully accepts the principle that any constitutional change could come about only with the consent of a majority in Northern Ireland.
In summary, let me make it clear what is in the declaration and what is not. What is in the declaration is a renewed commitment by the British Government to Northern Ireland's constitutional guarantee; an acknowledgement by the Taoiseach that a united Ireland could only be brought about with the consent of a majority of the people in Northern Ireland; a willingness on the Taoiseach's part to make changes in the Irish constitution if an overall settlement can be reached; and a confirmation that if Sinn Fein renounces violence, it will be able to participate in future democratic discussions.
What is not in the declaration is any suggestion that the British Government should join the ranks of persuaders of the "value" or "legitimacy" of a united Ireland; that is not there. Nor is there any suggestion that the future status of Northern Ireland should be decided by a single act of self-determination by the people of Ireland as a whole; that is not there either. Nor is there any timetable for constitutional change, or any arrangement for joint authority over Northern Ireland. In sum, the declaration provides that it is, as it must be, for the people of Northern Ireland to determine their own future.
All the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland will wish to study the document very carefully. I should like today to extend an offer to meet each of the parties regularly in the future, so that I can hear at first hand their concerns and ambitions, and can set out to them the British Government's position. If we can work together to quell ancient fears and suspicions, we can help to build a better future for Northern Ireland.
I have made it clear that if it renounces violence, the way is open to Sinn Fein to join in legitimate constitutional dialogue. That is a political route which it now has no excuse not to follow. That is the opportunity offered by this joint declaration—and it has been obtained without compromising any of the constitutional principles that this Government have consistently espoused. The onus is now on Sinn Fein to take advantage of that opportunity: I urge it to do so.

Mr. John Smith: On behalf of the Opposition, I welcome the joint declaration with enthusiasm. We fervently hope that it will be an important first step in a peace process that will lead to a new political settlement. It was necessary for the two Governments to take the lead, but it is vital that the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland now take part in new discussions which the British Government should promote.
There was never any excuse for violence and terror on the part of any paramilitary organisation, but there is now an opportunity for both the permanent cessation of violence and the involvement of Sinn Fein in constitutional dialogue—provided that it is clear that the path of violence has been abandoned. We hope that the new opportunities that the declaration creates are seized by both traditions in Northern Ireland.
May I ask the Prime Minister two questions about the detail of the declaration? First, in paragraph 9, both Governments commit themselves to seeking to create institutions and structures which would enable the people

of Ireland to work together in all areas of common interest. What kind of institution, and what areas of policy, have the Governments in mind?
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman referred to what he described as the "crucial sentence" in paragraph 4, about consent being
freely and concurrently given, North and South".
Does that passage mean that a constitutional settlement arising from the talks process could be put to the people of Northern Ireland and those of the Republic in separate referendums on the same day?
Finally, may I endorse the appeal for an end to violence that the Prime Minister made in his concluding sentence? That must be the overwhelming desire of all the people of the British Isles—not least those in Northern Ireland—who have suffered the appalling violence of the past 25 years.

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman both for his support for the joint declaration and for the continuation of talks which necessarily must proceed beside it. I believe that he is right that it is an opportunity to move from a violent path. It is an opportunity which no one can compel the men of violence to take. It is an opportunity which lies there and it is in their hands now to decide whether to take that opportunity and move towards a legitimate political path in future. I repeat: I hope that they will take that opportunity.
As to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's two specific questions, the reference in paragraph 9 refers specifically to the three-stranded talks that are continuing at the present time, and there would be a large number of areas of common interest that are being identified in these talks that would be the subject of the structures referred to. So far as "freely and concurrently given" is concerned in terms of referendums, it certainly need not necessarily mean referendums on the same day. What it does mean is that that could be the situation. It is a matter for agreement in the talks and beyond, but they certainly need not necessarily be on the same day. It does imply that consent would need to be given separately north and south.

Mr. James Molyneaux: Has the Prime Minister noticed that this morning's statement is already being termed the Downing street declaration? Those of us who remember the earlier Downing street declaration in the time of the Government of Lord Wilson will remember that it was very specific in saying that the affairs of Northern Ireland were an internal matter for the Parliament of the United Kingdom. May I, in a constructive fashion, ask the Prime Minister to assure us that the drift from that position over the past 20 years will be halted under his premiership?
Whatever the eventual conclusions that one may draw from this rather tortuously worded statement with its many contradictions—I am referring to the statement, not the one just made by the Prime Minister—it appears to give some finality to the secret discussions that have destabilised the Province over recent months and which the Prime Minister has recognised just now. Does the Prime Minister share my expectation that we can now proceed to govern Northern Ireland in accordance with the wishes of 85 per cent. of the population—Protestant and Roman Catholic—who were greatly reassured by his remark to the House that
The future constitutional position of the people of Northern Ireland is a matter for the people of Northern Ireland to determine and for no one else to determine."—[Official Report, 18 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 29.]


Finally, can the Prime Minister confirm that the joint declaration does not assert the value or legitimacy of achieving a united Ireland without majority consent; commit the people of Northern Ireland to joining a united Ireland against their democratic wishes, establish any form of joint authority over Northern Ireland, even by phasing; establish any joint mechanisms such as a permanent convention; or give Sinn Fein an immediate place at the talks table? Can the Prime Minister also confirm that the statement does not sideline the very valuable round of meetings between the parties convened by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram)— which are now drawing towards a successful conclusion and which have been supported just now by the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition?

The Prime Minister: On the right hon. Gentleman's specific point at the end, I can confirm to him that the joint declaration does not assert the value of achieving a united Ireland; does not assert the legitimacy of a united Ireland in the absence of majority consent; does not either, for I think that it was implicit in what the right hon. Gentleman said, commit the British Government to joining the ranks of the persuaders for a united Ireland. That is not the job of any British Government. It does not set any timetable for a united Ireland. It does not commit the people of Northern Ireland to join a united Ireland against their wishes, and it does not establish any arrangements for joint authority. I can confirm each of those points to the right hon. Gentleman.
As to the talks process undertaken by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes, we anticipate and expect that they will continue and intensify. They are, I believe, becoming extremely valuable. We wish to proceed with them with all speed so that we can make further progress in the talks, which will run alongside the declaration that I have just set out to the House. As far as the consent principle is concerned, I reiterate again, because I wish no one to be in any doubt about this, that the future constitutional position of Northern Ireland lies now, and will continue to lie, within the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland. For so long as a majority of the people of Northern Ireland wish to remain within the Union, they will have the total and complete support of this Government in doing so.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Would the Prime Minister care to comment on the fact that the great difficulty and the field of controversy between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic—Northern Ireland being a member of the United Kingdom, although the document never once mentions the United Kingdom; that phrase has been entirely jettisoned from the document—involves articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution? Surely that is the very nub of the controversy. Why does this paper not even mention that?
A member of the Government said to me outside, "Oh, yes, but look at page 5." I have read the document carefully. In fact, I was able to receive from Dublin 24 hours before this document was available to other people all the information that I put in my letter—[Interruption.] It is very important that the Prime Minister should answer this question. He confirms that, in the event of an overall settlement, according to the Taoiseach,

the Irish Government will, as part of a balanced constitutional accommodation, put forward and support proposals for change in the Irish Constitution which would fully reflect the principle of consent in Northern Ireland.
But it is not the principle of consent in Northern Ireland that has anything to do with articles 2 and 3; it is the principle of the territorial claim. However, that most important matter has not even been referred to.
Will the Prime Minister tell us what the statement on page 2 really does to the present position? Paragraph 4 states that the British Government agree
that it is for the people of the island of Ireland alone, by agreement between the two parts respectively, to exercise their right of self-determination on the basis of consent, freely and concurrently given, North and South, to bring about a united Ireland, if that is their wish.
How is that different? Is it not different from the present situation when the entity of self-determination in Northern Ireland is the people of Northern Ireland? Why must the people of Northern Ireland now be linked with the Irish Republic on a question of their own right to remain within this United Kingdom?
Finally, may I say to the Prime Minister, that, as a public representative, I find it very offensive to be told that, in three months' time, if the IRA ceases its violence without any conditions for handing over its weapons or its bomb-making material or any of its military prowess, the IRA will be invited, as constitutional politicians, to sit down at the table. That goes to the very gut of the resentment of the people of Northern Ireland who have been slaughtered, butchered and murdered—[Interruption.] I do not mind what the hon. Gentleman says. His constituents have not been murdered or butchered. Perhaps he would like to sit down with the godfathers of the IRA and others who have done such things. What I have described goes to the gut of the people of Northern Ireland. They look on this as a sell-out act of treachery.

The Prime Minister: Let me touch on the last part first. The hon. Gentleman makes the point that some of his constituents have been murdered by terrorist activities over the past 25 years. I acknowledge that and I understand the misery that that must have caused to his constituents, their families and to the hon. Gentleman himself.
I must say to the hon. Gentleman that the purpose of the agreement and the document is to make sure that, 25 years from now, his successor does not sit there saying that to the Prime Minister of the day. I wish to take action to make sure that there is no more bloodshed of that sort and no more coffins carried away week after week because politicians do not have the courage to sit down, address the problem and find a way through. I am prepared to do that. If the hon. Gentleman believes that I should not, he does not understand the responsibilities of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
On the hon. Gentleman's three questions, the declaration does not specifically refer to the United Kingdom; it specifically refers to the Union, which I think that the hon. Gentleman himself cares about. If he reads the document carefully, which, alas, he had not done when he made his remarks this morning and issued his letter, he will see that reference to the Union. As for articles 2 and 3, the quotation answers the hon. Gentleman's own question. That is clearly intended to refer to articles 2 and 3 in due course, and does so refer.
On the hon. Gentleman's third point on paragraph 4 about freely expressed consent, the specific point of


paragraph 4 is to mention the freely expressed consent north and south respectively. It is saying to the hon. Gentleman that he, his constituents and all the other people in Northern Ireland have themselves, by their own actions, in their hands the future constitutional position of Ulster.

Mr. John Hume: May I express to the Prime Minister and to Mr. Reynolds my deep appreciation for the enormous amount of energy that they have put into trying to grasp the hope of peace—a hope which is shared by the masses of people on both islands? Having read the joint declaration, I think that it is one of the most comprehensive declarations that has been made about British-Irish relations in the past 70 years. My appeal to all sections of our people is to read the entire statement in full and to have no knee-jerk reactions but to study it carefully and in full before responding.
As the House will be aware, it has been the consistent position of my party that the British-Irish quarrel of old, the quarrel of sovereignty, has changed fundamentally in the evolution of the new interdependent and post-nationalist Europe of which we are members, but the legacy of that past is the deeply divided people. I welcome the fact that the declaration indentifies the problem as the deeply divided people of Ireland. I also welcome the fact that it recognises that that division can be healed only by agreement, and by an agreement that earns the allegiance and agreement of all our traditions and respects their diversity. I welcome also the fact that the Government have committed themselves to promoting such agreement and to encouraging such agreement, and whatever form that agreement takes, the Government will endorse.
Does the Prime Minister agree that the joint declaration is a challenge to all parties to come to the table in a totally peaceful atmosphere to begin the very difficult process —it will be a difficult process—of reaching agreement? If it takes place in a peaceful atmosphere, we will have much more chance of reaching such an agreement. My appeal to everyone who comes to that table is to come armed only with the strength of their convictions and not with any form of coercion or physical force.
Let us remember at this time that it is people who have rights, not territory, and that humanity transcends nationality. May the House share with me at this moment the hope of all our people that today will be the first major step on a road that will remove for ever the gun and the bomb from our small island of people.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comprehensive support. He is right; the declaration is a challenge to all parties and to all people Concerned with finding a peaceful settlement in Northern Ireland. I have to say to all parties that I think that we have no moral alternative but to take up that challenge and see whether we can find a satisfactory outcome. The hon. Gentleman has shown his personal commitment to a settlement in Northern Ireland for many years and, on that basis, his support today is doubly welcome.

Mr. Tom King: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the genuine and serious work that he has done in producing the declaration for the House? Is not it evident that no such declaration could give everybody

everything that they wanted? Is not it evident also that there is nothing in the declaration that genuinely and seriously threatens anybody's vital interests in the matter?
Is not there a heavy responsibility on all hon. Members, including the elected Members in Northern Ireland, not to react in a way which could destroy the best opportunity for peace that we have seen since the trouble began? Is not the message from the House—we hope that it will be repeated later from the Dail Eireann—to those who have been responsible for violence that, because there is now a joint offer from both Governments of access to the democratic process, violence should cease immediately?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his remarks. He speaks, of course, with the experience of having been a distinguished Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. He is right that this is a balanced document which now offers opportunities that were not there before. I share my right hon. Friend's hope that those opportunities will be taken up.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Will the Prime Minister note that he has our sincere and heartfelt good will in all his efforts and in the personal commitment which he is devoting to the task? Does he note also that we welcome the concurrent referendum possibility and the emphasis on human rights in the Taoiseach's own statement?
Is not the real question for the terrorists? Why should anybody else die and why should any more families be torn apart when it is possible to seek change without obstacle by a peaceful process, and when there are guarantees, which are underwritten by both Governments, that those changes cannot be enforced against the will of the majority in the north of Ireland?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There is now no justification whatever for terrorism. There is now a clear and identifiable alternative for those people who seriously wish to engage in discussions in Northern Ireland. If terrorism were to continue after the statement and after the declaration, with the support that that has been given, it will be clearly understood by everyone that those people who engage in terrorism do not in any way genuinely seek a settlement, but simply wish to inflict murder and terror continuously.

Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: May I ask my right hon. Friend to be encouraged by the fact that the British-Irish inter-parliamentary body met in London today, and British and Irish Members of Parliament alike asked me on their behalf to welcome the joint declaration and to give it their support?
May I further ask my right hon. Friend to repeat that the declaration is a framework for peace that represents in many ways an opportunity for a new beginning? Will my right hon. Friend, together with the Irish Taoiseach, continue with all of his strength in his historic work, the end of which can mean only the peace which we all want?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. The declaration certainly is a framework for peace. It is an opportunity, but whether that opportunity is taken does not lie in my hands or in the hands of the Irish Prime Minister. It lies in the hands of the people who have bombed and killed for so long. It is they who must come under pressure to make sure that the violence ends.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: May I, as someone whose constituency suffered from the bombers, ask the Prime Minister to accept that now is the time to give peace a chance? Will he also accept that if anybody involved fails to take that chance, they will never be forgiven?
It is time for all paramilitaries to lay down their arms. If they do, will not that be a fitting memorial, not only to the two small boys who lost their lives in Warrington, but to all who have lost their lives needlessly because of the actions of the people of violence? Let us hope that the words that have been spoken today will be heeded and that peace comes at last. Is not that what is needed if we are to avoid debates about violence in the future?

The Prime Minister: I cannot improve on what the hon. Gentleman said; I simply endorse it.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Does my right hon. Friend ardently wish that people of Northern Ireland wish to remain part of the United Kingdom? Otherwise, is there not a danger that people will say that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is careless with regard to the integrity of the United Kingdom? In that case, would it be inconceivable that anybody could have said that without the events of the past 25 years?

The Prime Minister: If my hon. Friend looks at the joint declaration and at the words I set out so clearly at the last general election, he need have no doubt about my views on the Union; they are well known and on the record. I have gone to great trouble to ensure that the constitutional guarantee is firmly enshrined in the joint declaration, so that there can be no doubt that those people who care about the Union—and we are primarily concerned about the people in Northern Ireland who care about the Union—shall have it within their own hands, with the full support of the Government, to remain within the Union for so long as that is their wish.

Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Prime Minister aware that so strong is the desire for peace that the overwhelming majority of people in this country have long favoured talks among all the parties concerned? Will he confirm that a round table conference on that basis offers a better hope of a durable peace than simply talks between two Prime Ministers, neither of whom has been responsible for the violence? Would I be right in assuming that the significance of what he said today about the future of the island of Ireland being in the hands of the Irish people is that the British Government are no longer laying claim to an interest in the maintenance of the Union if the people of the north are ready to seek alternative arrangements? Is not that an important statement which ought to be underlined, clarified and emphasised in order to end the violence?

The Prime Minister: On the first point, talks between the two Governments have a place and the joint declaration is the outcome of those discussions. It lies alongside the main talks process with all the consitutional parties, who must play their part in determining what happens, as they are most directly concerned. Self-evidently, that is the best way to proceed. As far as the Union is concerned, I reiterate the points I made a moment ago; my views about the Union are well known. I said some time ago at the election that it would not be appropriate for any Government—I was talking about Scotland—to hold Scotland within the United Kingdom if a majority of its

people wanted independence. The same must apply to the people of Northern Ireland. That does not exclude the fact that I have my own personal views; it illustrates the fact that, ultimately, it must be for the people themselves to determine.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: While warmly welcoming the joint declaration as a potential positive way forward, may I ask my right hon. Friend to remember that, during the weeks it was prepared, violence continued in Northern Ireland? Will he ensure that there is no let-up in the hunt for those that perpetrated terrorism?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend takes a particular interest in Northern Ireland as chairman of the committee particularly concerned with Northern Ireland. I give him the categorical assurance that there will be no let-up in the security action against terrorists. The co-operation with the Gardai and the security forces in the north is today at a more comprehensive level that we have ever known.

Mr. John D. Taylor: As I almost lost my life at the hands of IRA terrorism, I fully understand the message inherent in today's declaration and to whom it is directed. Obviously there is much emphasis on Irish nationalist aspirations. However, the Prime Minister will know that 95 per cent. of people in my constituency are more interested in British aspirations. Although he has given some assurances today and specifically referred to paragraph 2 of the joint declaration which states that both Prime Ministers reaffirm
Northern Ireland's statutory constitutional guarantee",
the trouble is that both Prime Ministers interpret differently what Northern Ireland's constitutional guarantee really is. Therefore, with the purpose of giving confidence to the British people of my constituency, will the Prime Minister assure us, first, that the declaration in no way weakens Northern Ireland's position within the United Kingdom and, secondly, that it in no way gives Dublin any further role in the internal affairs or administration of Northern Ireland?

The Prime Minister: First, the whole House knows that the right hon. Gentleman was on one occasion very badly wounded by the IRA, and that he showed bravery then and subsequently. I am grateful for what he said. I give him both the assurances that he seeks. The declaration in no way weakens the constitutional guarantee that was first set out in the Northern Ireland Constitutional Act 1973. There is no weakening of that constitutional guarantee and nothing agreed today in the joint declaration gives the Government of the Republic of Ireland any additional say in the affairs of Northern Ireland.

Sir James Kilfedder: Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that there will be no talks with Sinn Fein until the terrorists, the IRA, hand over not only all the guns, ammunition and explosives that they have in Northern Ireland, but the material that they have in the Irish Republic?

The Prime Minister: It may be rather difficult in practice to find out precisely where it is and who has it; that is the practical difficulty that we face. We have said, beyond any doubt, that there must be the clearest possible public renunciation of violence and then a decontamination period—[HON. MEMBERS: "Both sides."]—so that it is clear


that that renunciation of violence will be held and there will be no violence. Then one can determine whether Sinn Fein can enter into discussions.

Hon. Members: Both sides.

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: The Prime Minister will be aware that, in Dail Eireann today, there will be a similar reaction to the joint declaration. I welcome that, as I welcome the reception that it has received in the House. Does the Prime Minister accept that the intrinsic value will be recognised only if the same acceptance is gained where it counts—in places like my constituency in west Belfast, on the Shankill road and in the districts which have been beset by the violence of the IRA and of loyalist paramilitary groupings?
The Prime Minister said in his statement that the British Government's role will be to encourage, facilitate and enable agreement among all the people who inhabit the island. Does he include in that the further persuasion of those in the IRA who are carrying out violence? He has recognised that there are channels for achieving that. A logical conclusion of that part of his statement must be to pursue that type of persuasion with those people, to try to ensure an end to violence.
I am consistently impressed by the reassurances that the Prime Minister gives to Unionists in the House. Those of us of a nationalist persuasion believe in pursuing our objectives by peaceful democratic means. When the Prime Minister speaks about the north of Ireland, he should recognise that 44 per cent. of the population follow that view and are entitled to some prime ministerial persuasion and reassurance at some time.

The Prime Minister: I do not think that there has been any occasion when I have suggested that everyone who held nationalist aspirations was inclined to pursue them in a violent manner. That is certainly not my view. The IRA has pursued its activities in a wholly unsatisfactory and brutal manner. That patently does not apply to every nationalist and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should have thought that any hon. Member could conceivably think that it did. As for persuasion, it is not in my mind to offer concessions to people. What we have to say to all parties is now said clearly and in the open. They know what lies there; they know what opportunity awaits if they are prepared permanently to renounce violence. That is what lies there and there is nothing further to be offered.

Mr. Michael Mates: Now that the brave efforts of both Prime Ministers and of the Ministers and officials, who worked so hard, have brought the declaration to a successful conclusion, does my right hon. Friend agree that the greatest cause for hope and satisfaction is that although there has never been the slightest excuse for violence, killing and bombing, if that course is pursued by the terrorists it will only show that they are not the slightest bit interested in any part of the democratic process? Has my right hon. Friend further agreed with the Taoiseach that if violence continues, both Governments, working together, will make concerted efforts to do whatever must be done to defeat the terrorists?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend speaks with special knowledge of Northern Ireland. He is absolutely

right to say that there is no conceivable excuse for a continuation of violence. If it were to continue, I do not have a shred of doubt that we would continue to receive good and enhanced co-operation from the Government of the Republic of Ireland in tracking down those engaged in terrorism.

Mr. David Winnick: Do not we owe a particular debt of gratitude to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) whose dedicated work for peace should be appreciated by all? Many attacked him, and I hope that they will realise now what he set out to achieve. Would it be useful to let friendly western democracies know what has been agreed between Ireland and the United Kingdom—not least the United States, where there seems to be some misunderstanding of the long and justified campaign waged by this country against terrorism? Should not the people of western Europe know and understand that the joint declaration has the overwhelming support of the people of Ireland and Britain and that continuing terrorism from either side has no support from the people whom the terrorists claim to represent?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to add the hon. Gentleman's tribute to the hon. Member for Foyle. I have paid tribute to him in the past for the work that he pursued for so many years, and I am glad to reiterate it today.
I agree entirely with the remarks of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) in respect of the United States and Europe. I believe that there will be overwhelming support for the proposals set out in the joint declaration. We must hope that that transmits itself to those people who have the power to stop the killing, and that they choose to do so.

Mr. George Walden: Does my right hon. Friend agree that whether or not this welcome declaration leads to an end to violence, it finally strips away the remotest pretext for violence and for international sympathy or support for violence? It also broadens the political base for the repression of violence from whatever quarter, should it continue.

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend touched on a most important point when he said that the declaration strips away any pretext for tangible support. That is true within the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, and in respect of the tangible support that has come from other sources from time to time.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Although there is widespread hope that today's declaration will form the basis of a peaceful settlement, does the Prime Minister agree that much remains to be done to ensure a lasting peaceful settlement? As to talks with various parties, will the Prime Minister give an absolute assurance that no party will be able to use a boycott or veto to scupper the peace process and that the Prime Minister will not be deflected by his Government's desire to secure the support of Unionist votes in the House?

The Prime Minister: I do not believe that the participants in the talks would put up with a veto, which is the most practical point arising from the hon. Gentleman's question. However, if the talks procedure itself is to produce a lasting outcome, it will need to carry the consent of people in Northern Ireland. I shall seek, therefore, to encourage the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland at


which the hon. Gentleman directed his remarks to play a full part in the constitutional discussions. They have done so thus far; they have done so very constructively. A great deal of progress has been made and I believe that they will wish to continue to make progress, as was indicated by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) a few moments ago.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: As a committed Conservative and Unionist Member of the House, I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's total commitment to peace. All Members of the House join him in hoping that the declaration will produce peace. Does my right hon. Friend accept, however, that the strength of the United Kingdom is composed of the component parts of the United Kingdom—England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales—and that any breach of the Union will weaken the whole? Will my right hon. Friend, as I did some years ago, go to Northern Ireland and campaign for the Union and support those who are in favour of the Union, should the necessity arise?

The Prime Minister: My views about the Union, as I indicated a moment or so ago, are well known and I do not believe that they can be seriously challenged by anyone who considers the record at the general election, before the general election, or subsequent to the general election, or considers the detail of the joint declaration. I also hold to the belief, however, that in the circumstances that exist in Northern Ireland it is for the people of Northern Ireland to determine the position. I believe that that is the right way to proceed and I think that in due course that is the way in which we must proceed.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: In welcoming the statement and wishing its ideals and its aspirations fair wind, although I recognise the many difficult days which still lie ahead, may I re-emphasise, on behalf of the constitutional nationalist parties in the House, the importance that we attach to achieving our aims through the ballot box, through reasoned arguments and through the democratically expressed views of the people of the constituent parts of the United Kingdom, be that through a referendum or through a general election?
I also congratulate the hon. Member for Foyle on the bravery that he has shown for many months, along with other people whose names perhaps are not so well known in this context, and I hope that the efforts that have been made will bring about a lasting settlement. Finally, I remind the Prime Minister that in Europe there is a great opportunity for the diversity of nations to be recognised as equal partners.

The Prime Minister: On her first two points, the hon. Lady will carry almost everyone with her, and I believe that she deserves to. The third point was rather more elliptical, but I think that, in principle, I can agree with the hon. Lady.

Mr. James Couchman: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and all those who have helped in the making of this historic agreement. Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House, however, that no commitment —explicit or implicit—has been made for any form of amnesty for those people who have been convicted of the most heinous crimes in Northern Ireland, and that the

judicial process will pursue, with utmost diligence, those who have continued with their crimes of violence in recent weeks?

The Prime Minister: I can give my hon. Friend that absolute commitment.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: May I suggest to the Prime Minister that it is appropriate at this time that we remember two brave and dedicated men from my constituency who made the supreme sacrifice as members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary at the weekend? Drew Beecom and Ernie Smith were fine men. Those are the sort of people who must never be betrayed. I have experienced at first hand for more than 20 years the treachery of the IRA. Is there implicit in paragraph 10, which deals with a possible permanent end to violence and the way in which the men of violence can in due course enter the democratic process, provision by both Governments for a process of verification? Will he assure us that that process includes the surrender of arms and explosives and that it requires those who have been involved in violence to declare, by drafting a new manifesto and seeking approval at the ballot box, that they totally eschew violence before they can fully enter the democratic process?

The Prime Minister: They will certainly be required to give evidence of sincerity in a renunciation of violence. That is the purpose of having a gap between the renunciation and the entry into exploratory preliminary talks, so that we can examine the matters that the hon. Gentleman raises. The dreadful murders of the two brave men that he mentioned at Fivemiletown are the latest in a long catalogue of the wholly unnecessary and wasteful actions that have destroyed so many people's lives in Northern Ireland. If the options that are opened up as a result of this declaration are to be taken up, there is a possibility that perhaps no more brave men need join them.

Mr. Henry Bellingham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be widespread welcome for the third paragraph of the declaration, which emphasises the key role of the European Community? Does he agree that the development of the single market will break down economic barriers and build up trust between the two communities? Does he also agree that it is important to have greater sporting links, as they also break down barriers and could build up the links between the two traditions? Does he agree that it would be an excellent idea if there were an all-Ireland soccer team?

The Prime Minister: An all-Ireland soccer team would be a great loss to many people who have watched Northern Ireland play the Republic on many occasions. Those of us who like watching the five nations rugby championship would also rather miss that clash. Beyond that, however, my hon. Friend is right about the impact of the single market.

Rev. Martin Smyth: None of us have doubted the Prime Minister's commitment to the Union, but perhaps in drafting the declaration it might have been wiser to put in Great Britain, because then we would have kept Scotland within the Union.

Mrs. Ewing: No, thank you.

Rev. Martin Smyth: May I explore a little further whether, having offered the carrot, the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic has made any commitment to join in applying the stick if it is necessary and the offer of peace is not accepted? As I understand it, the two Governments and the two nations are not at war. May I also clarify a misunderstanding that may have gone unnoticed in this place today? Sinn Fein has a democratic place and has been elected, but its representatives did not take their places in this House and it has not been prepared to act as a proper democratic party.
I shall give three simple illustrations. Having made a declaration that they would not support violence, as they would not then be eligible to be councillors, one of Sinn Fein's elected councillors has gone to the United States to defend the acts of the IRA. The other evening in my constituency, a 1,000 lb bomb was placed by the IRA in a nationalist and predominantly Roman Catholic area. It could have devasted new houses and a Roman Catholic-controlled school and one woman died. Representative McKnight of Sinn Fein refused to condemn the IRA. Is it not near time that we stopped that mollycoddling and laid down the terms under which Sinn Fein can be represented as a proper democratic party?

The Prime Minister: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, if the offer that implicitly lies there is not taken up, I have no doubt that the two Governments will continue to work together in intensified mode on security matters against men of violence, whether from the IRA, the Ulster Freedom Fighters or the Ulster Volunteer Force. The relationship between Sinn Fein and the IRA is well understood, as is the pseudo-constitutional position of the president of Sinn Fein. Therein lies the link—the necessity for a complete renunciation of violence before there can be any intention of accepting the representatives of Sinn Fein in any constitutional talks.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. May I remind hon. Members that we are not in the middle of a debate but asking questions on a statement. I am sure that if I call a few more hon. Members, they will co-operate with me and ask brisk questions, and perhaps we could have a brisk exchange.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Can the Prime Minister tell us what loyal Ulster has done wrong to have this further betrayal visited on it? When he talks to the House about the consent of Northern Ireland being required, will he remember, because the people of Northern Ireland have not forgotten, that their consent was neither asked for nor given for the Anglo-Irish Agreement? Their consent was neither asked for nor given for this declaration. It seems that their consent will be required only for the final act of separation.
Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether his stomach is no longer turning at the prospect of sitting down with the IRA? Can he tell us why he has taken away the unfettered right of the people of Northern Ireland to have an act of self-determination and why he has included it in the self-determination of the island as a whole? Why is it that Prime Ministers from this House who protest the most that they are Unionists are always the ones who do the greatest harm to the Union?

The Prime Minister: I am afraid that I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that I think that that was intended to be

a wholly destructive intervention. There is no question, and the hon. Gentleman knows that there is no question, of betrayal in any sense. I would invite the hon. Gentleman to read the joint declaration and then read it again and again until he understands it, because he cannot justify what he has just said.
The constitutional guarantee and the consent principle are writ large in the statement. In the letter which the hon. Gentleman published this morning, with the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), the hon. Gentleman claimed that I had
given the Prime Minister of a foreign and alien power joint jurisdiction … over part of Her Majesty's dominions".
That is what the hon. Gentleman wrote this morning. He was utterly and totally wrong about that. I have done no such thing, as the joint declaration makes unambiguously clear. The declaration states that self-determination must be
exercised with and subject to the agreement and consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland".
The hon. Gentleman should read the declaration before he comments on it, and not mislead people about it. I hope that one day the hon. Gentleman will not always put himself between actions that will bring peace and that peace.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Can the Prime Minister tell us whether the loyalist paramilitaries will also be expected to lay down their arms? Can he tell us what he means about the concurrent referendums? For instance, we now know from questions that he has answered that the referendums may not be on the same day. If the decision of the referendum in the south of the country is in favour, and the decision of the referendum in the north is against, do they add them up? [Interruption.] Can the Prime Minister explain what will happen in those circumstances? Does it mean that there will be no further progress? I should like to know the answer.

The Prime Minister: I sometimes despair at the hon. Gentleman. Everyone is expected to lay down their arms —that is perfectly clear. As I said, I despair at the hon. Gentleman's understanding. I have made it clear almost times beyond number at this Dispatch Box over recent weeks and now that there must be a majority in Northern Ireland. If there is no majority in Northern Ireland, the constitutional guarantee stands.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: In view of paragraph 4 of the declaration that the British Government
have no selfish strategic or economic interest in Northern Ireland",
will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government still have a "strategic or economic interest" in Wolverhampton? [Interruption.]

The Prime Minister: Well—[Interruption.] Don't tempt me—[Laughter.]
Let me explain to my hon. Friend: we shall not impose our views on the majority in Northern Ireland, but that, of course, does not and cannot mean that we are indifferent to their concerns and their future. We support the Union, and we protect its people. We support their rights with our cast-iron constitutional guarantee. We support their economy, and we support it generously. We deploy 18,000 of our troops in Northern Ireland, because of our concern about the situation there, and we want to ensure that the


people in Northern Ireland about whom we are concerned, from both communities, can have a safer and more prosperous future in which democracy can thrive. None of that is selfish; all of it is our responsibility.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the Prime Minister accept that only when articles 2 and 3 have been removed from the Irish constitution—

Mr. David Trimble: Removed?

Mr. Beggs: Removed. Does the Prime Minister accept that only when articles 2 and 3 have been removed will my constituents recognise that, for the first time, an opportunity has arisen to seek to develop new relationships between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic? Will he bear with me when I describe the great disappointments that my constituents and people elsewhere in Northern Ireland have had over little things, such as the £7 million defrauded by a citizen of the Irish Republic in Dublin out of the people who invested in International Investments Ltd? Despite the representations that have been made from Northern Ireland on that little issue, we have had no satisfaction. Therefore, we have great doubts whether we shall get satisfaction on the greater issues.

The Prime Minister: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's constituents. I freely confess that I am not familiar with the particular case that he mentioned, but I am sure that if he brings it to the attention of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my right hon. and learned Friend will examine the matter to see whether anything can be done.

Mr. Barry Porter: Does my right hon. Friend accept that no rational Unionist could fail to give the declaration a cautious welcome, but does he also accept that it is sensible that the declaration has not been made in an atmosphere of euphoria, as though it would bring "peace in our time"? However, it is an opportunity. I take sides with the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) in asking whether my right hon. Friend also agrees that those who may have some persuasive influence, although no direct influence, over the loyalist paramilitaries should persuade them to lay down their arms—before the IRA men lay down theirs, in my view.

The Prime Minister: We all wish to see the men of violence lay down their arms, whether they claim to represent the loyalist or the nationalist cause. In my judgment, both groups of people involved in violence betray the causes for which they claim to speak. My hon. Friend is right about the status of the document. It is an opportunity for peace, but it cannot be guaranteed by the two Governments; I do not guarantee it. It lies there to be taken up if the people who can deliver peace will take it up. It is not a certainty, but it is an opportunity.

Mr. Trimble: The hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) referred to euphoria. Does the Prime Minister recall the euphoria years ago when the House foolishly endorsed the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which has blighted the politics of Ulster ever since? If we are suspending judgment on the statement today, it is in the hope that it will lead to a way out of the cul-de-sac to which the people of Ulster have been condemned for the past eight years.
Will the Prime Minister comment on the democratic deficit in Northern Ireland? At his press conference today he said that his object was to increase the democratic rights of the people of Northern Ireland. Does he realise that it lies uniquely within his hands to remedy that democratic deficit, and will he give us an assurance that he will not be held to ransom by other parties in other countries that are trying to block that remedy for their own selfish motives?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying that he will suspend judgment and study the document. I am sure that that is the right thing to do. The document is complex, and genuinely deserves and will reward careful study. I hope that when he has studied it he will be reassured. As I said earlier to the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, I am keen to proceed with the talks process. I look forward very much to examining the ideas which the right hon. Gentleman has presented to me on strand 1. We shall examine those quickly and pursue the discussions that my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) has been engaged in for some time.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: May I say to my right hon. Friend that it was a remarkable achievement to have received such an unambiguous statement from the Government of Eire that they would abide by the wishes of the Northern Ireland people on the matter of unification? That fact alone should be sufficient to convince the IRA that, even by the standards of its own perverted logic, when neither Government will give it any succour or support, it has no alternative but to come to the bargaining table.

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right and I see no need to reiterate his point.

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: Is the Prime Minister aware that while the House has generally accepted his statement, the people of Northern Ireland will not perhaps look at it in the same light because for years and years and for election after election, they have voted to show that they are part of the United Kingdom? They will hardly regard the agreement as further copper fastening because they already felt that they were part of the United Kingdom. Do the Prime Minister and the House realise that the people of Northern Ireland require every encouragement to see this statement and the agreement in that light because they have always felt that they were part of the United Kingdom and they do not understand why we need an agreement to point that out?

The Prime Minister: In a sense, the hon. Gentleman answered the point when he said that the people of Northern Ireland have shown that they are part of the United Kingdom and that they feel strongly about that. The fact that they feel strongly about it and the debates that so frequently ensue in Northern Ireland mean that there is a need for reassurance and that reassurance is offered by the joint declaration today. They have shown, as the hon. Gentleman says, that they wish to be part of the United Kingdom. As long as they continue to show that, they need have no doubt that they will remain a part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. David Tredinnick: My right hon. Friend may not be aware that 25 years ago I was serving with the Army in Northern Ireland and had the task of helping build the peace line that divided the Protestant and


Catholic communities of the Shankill and Falls road. Does he accept that the initiative is not just the best chance of peace, but the only chance of peace in the foreseeable future? Does he further agree that we are talking not only about peace, but about prosperity, jobs and trade for north and south Ireland to improve the standard of living of all the people?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making a point that has not yet been made this afternoon. Were we able to end the violence that has scarred Northern Ireland for so long, it would make a remarkable difference to the business prospects of Northern Ireland, to the prospects for tourism and to the prospects for the flow of inward investment into Northern Ireland. I can think of no single event that would raise the quality of life and the standard of material prosperity for the people of Northern Ireland than an ending of violence.

Mr. A. Cecil Walker: I welcome the Prime Minister's commitment to the constitutional parties. Will he confirm that the creation of a Northern Ireland assembly is still on the table?

The Prime Minister: I can confirm that that is still part of the strand 1 talks.

Dr. Liam Fox: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the real importance of the declaration is that it removes any pretext for terrorism, violence and murder and that now the onus is clearly on the men of violence to give up their arms and take the peace process further?

The Prime Minister: Yes, that is entirely right. It is their decision and we hope that they will make it.

Mr. Harry Barnes: It is hoped that Sinn Fein will respond positively to the joint declaration and persuade the IRA to end its armed struggle. However, some issues in the joint declaration may worry responsible Unionism in Northern Ireland—the issue of articles 2 and 3 has already been suggested. Will the Prime Minister elaborate on paragraph 11 of the declaration which deals with the establishment of a forum for peace and reconciliation? It seems that that forum is to be established by the Irish Government, although they will talk to other parties. I am not clear whether that forum is to be for the whole of Ireland or just for the Republic. Is not it the case that Northern Ireland really needs a forum for peace and reconciliation and that it should be developed in that area?

The Prime Minister: The forum to which the hon. Gentleman refers is an initiative of the Irish Government which I understood would be launched after an announcement that violence had ended. That is certainly what the Taoiseach said this morning. It would be open to all constitutional parties in the north and south, but would, of course, be entirely optional. There would be no compulsion on any party to attend.

Mr. David Wilshire: In giving the joint declaration a cautious, but heartfelt welcome, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his courage in seizing what is potentially a poisoned chalice? May I press him further for crucial detail? Does his definition of a cessation of violence include the handing over of at least some

weapons and explosives and will he assure the House that convicted murderers in Northern Ireland will serve the whole of their sentences?

The Prime Minister: I can certainly confirm that not only do I not have any notion in my mind of amnesty, but there is no suggestion of a reduction in sentences awarded by the courts. That is a matter for the courts and not something in which I wish to interfere. Were there to be an end to violence, the crimes that are currently being investigated would still be the subject of investigation in the future—that is the way our criminal justice system operates and it will continue to operate on that basis. We hope that there will be a surrender of some arms. The sine qua non is the absolute assurance that there is a renunciation of violence and that that renunciation is shown to be carried out.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Prime Minister recognise that the basis of a lot of the talks that have occurred in the past few weeks is the initiative taken by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) in meeting Gerry Adams, the leader of the Sinn Fein? In the spirit of expanding democracy in Northern Ireland and in the whole country, what consideration has he given to the repeal of the prevention of terrorism Act, to a lifting of the ban on Gerry Adam's movements to this country and to the ending of the broadcasting ban on Sinn Fein so that the peace process may be further hastened in Northern Ireland?

The Prime Minister: I have not given consideration to those particular matters. Indeed, in the Republic of Ireland, there is a tougher ban, as I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will know. I indicated earlier my admiration for what the hon. Member for Foyle has done over many years, not only over recent months. The Taoiseach's initiative did not begin a few months ago, but commenced in February 1992, at our first meeting in Downing street, soon after he became the Taoiseach.

Mr. Frank Cook: The Prime Minister must be pleased and proud to put the offer for peace on the table today and I, like most hon. Members, am happy about it. However, will he bear in mind that the active elements of terrorism in Northern Ireland will not wish to see a cessation of violence—the element that have what I call a gangster mentality who have been making a good living from what is going on? Some of those men will want actively to perpetrate further acts of violence under the guise of someone else. Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that he will carefully scrutinise any transgression that may threaten the agreement so that we know who is the guilty party? While a referendum is being—

Madam Speaker: Order. I have asked for brisk questions. I am allowing the statement to run a long time because it is so important to the House. I wish that hon. Members would not abuse my tolerance and put one question so that I can call all hon. Members who wish to speak.

Mr. Cook: It is a most important question.

Madam Speaker: I am sure that all questions are important. The hon. Gentleman must determine the priority of his questions.

Mr. Cook: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will ask his question speedily. I have pleaded for short questions so that other hon. Members might be called. I think that that is a fair and just way to proceed.

Mr. Cook: Concurrent with the concurrent referendums in north and southern Ireland, can we have an appropriate and complementary referendum in the United Kingdom to find out what mainland Britain thinks?

The Prime Minister: I had not contemplated a referendum of that sort on this particular issue. On the early part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I think that he is right. In terms of the criminal aspect that so often runs alongside terrorism, he touches on an important point. There is a possibility that terrorists might give up terrorism but that some might decide to continue with what one might call freelance gangsterism. The hon. Gentleman touches on an important point, and I am glad that he did so.

Mr. Calum Macdonald: Will the Prime Minister clarify the final sentence of paragraph 7, which contains the important commitment from the Taoiseach that
in the event of overall settlement, the Irish Government will, as part of a balanced constitutional accommodation, put forward proposals for changes in the … Constitution which would … reflect the principle of consent"?
May I take that to mean that it does not preclude a change of that nature in the constitution in advance of a final settlement and that we might still hope that the Irish Government might, of themselves, grasp the nettle of articles 2 and 3?

The Prime Minister: It certainly does not preclude that. The hon. Gentleman has read it entirely correctly. It is a rather allusive way of indicating the fact that articles 2 and 3 might, at an appropriate time, be put forward for changes in the Irish constitution. The hon. Gentleman has read it accurately.

Ms Kate Hoey: In paragraph 4, the Prime Minister reiterates on behalf of the Government that Britain has no
selfish strategic or economic interest in northern Ireland.
Even if hon. Members do not like it, they must accept that many people in Northern Ireland will regard that as a betrayal, even if we think it is wrong. Will the Prime Minister clarify what he means by that sentence? Does not he, as a British Prime Minister, think that British citizens, many of whom lost members of their families fighting for this country in the war, might feel a little sad? Will he say what he really means by it?

The Prime Minister: The essence of it is that our interest is benevolent, not selfish. I set out a series of ways in which I felt that that should be interpreted in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen). The essence is that we are not going to impose our views on the majority of the people in Northern Ireland against their wishes. That is the essence of what it is about, but it does not mean, and should not be interpreted as meaning, that we are indifferent to their concerns or their future. We are not indifferent to their concerns or to their future. That is why in terms of economic support and, for the past many years, military support to preserve security, we have shown our concern for the people of Northern Ireland—all of them, both communities—in the most tangible way possible.

Mr. John Home Robertson: I fully understand why the declaration concentrates mainly on finding ways of persuading Sinn Fein and its paramilitary allies to stop murdering people, but, as the majority of recent terrorist incidents have been the result of so-called "loyalist" paramilitary activities, does the Prime Minister agree that the whole House would never forgive people who went on carrying out such acts in the name of loyalty to the House and the state and nor would they forget politicians who condoned such activities?

The Prime Minister: The House wants no one to murder and kill on the basis of loyalty to the Union except perhaps at a time when the country might be at war with another nation. That is not the case. The hon. Gentleman is quite right—the actions of those who call themselves loyalists besmirch the Unionist cause and are not accepted by constitutional Unionists. Their activities are as malign as those of the IRA.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I hope that my reaction is not cynical, but, given the document's emphasis on the Government's commitment to honour
the democratic wish of a greater number of the people of Northern Ireland",
the island of Ireland will surely remain divided in the foreseeable future. Is that not a reasonble assumption? Is it not also fair to assume that significant interested parties will seek to put on the agenda the hugely important issue of a united Ireland?

The Prime Minister: I think that I have made it clear repeatedly over the past 1 hour and 25 minutes that we believe in the principle of consent and that is what, rightly in my judgment, is enshrined in the document.

Mr. Frank Field: Will the Prime Minister list to what extent the British Government's policy has been changed as a result of the joint agreement? Does he accept that merely to bring the parties to the conference table does not necessarily lessen the chance of violence? Does he recall that the last time a comprehensive peace treaty was under discussion, which all major parties had sought election successfully to support, a civil war and bloody carnage followed, the like of which we had not seen before and have not seen since?

The Prime Minister: The joint declaration is consistent with our policy, as I told the House earlier.

Mr. Field: What has changed?

The Prime Minister: It is consistent with our policy, as I told the House earlier. The hon. Gentleman referred to what happened in the past, but it is rather a counsel of despair. I think that the hon. Gentleman, like me, would wish to see us make a move that may end violence and lead to a constitutional settlement. That is what we are doing. In no sense do I believe that it is going to be easy, and in no sense do I believe that we can snatch at it in a second and change the whole way of life in Ireland, or even in Northern Ireland, but it is presenting an opportunity to take a first step towards securing a long-term constitutional position by ending violence. While that violence continues, no progress can be made economically and only limited progress can be made politically so it is a wholly desirable


step. We are seeking to ensure that violence ends so that we can begin the further discussions that will have to take place.

Mr. Michael Connarty: I should like to add my congratulations to those who brought about this joint declaration and I am very pleased because it is, of course, Labour party policy that there should be a united Ireland only with the consent of the people in the north. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that the chill of the horror of violence in Northern Ireland goes across the border? Although we bow to the experience of Northern Ireland Members, it does not go down well to hear the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) claim that it was only in his fiefdom. Is he aware that I lost a relative in 1973 in a pub bombing in Belfast?
Is he aware that last night there was a peace vigil at St. Martin-in-the-Fields at which hon. Members of all parties stood with people from Northern Ireland calling for an end to violence and killing for Christmas and, we hope, onwards in Northern Ireland? There were people there from the Ophsal Commission and members of Families Against Intimidation and Terror. Does he know that people in Families Against Intimidation and Terror are saying that they are underfunded? Does he not agree with me that the civil society will have to be built in Ireland, not just political initiatives, before the people of Ireland who are against violence can come into the light and drive the men of terror into the darkness?

The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman is right on the question of violence. Clearly, hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies have had far greater experience of violence over the past 25 years than those of us with mainland constituencies. The hon. Gentleman cited his own case, and many of us will have had friends involved in the violence in Northern Ireland. In later years, perhaps most noticeably recently in the dreadful events in Warrington, that violence has spilled over to the mainland. While the brunt has been borne in Northern Ireland, I think that an understanding of what the people of Northern Ireland have suffered has increased in recent years and I think it is desirable that it has done so. The hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that the violence spreads beyond an individual constituency, however bad things may have been in that constituency.
The hon. Gentleman's second point returns to a point made by one of my hon. Friends a few moments ago: nothing will do more for the economic well-being of Northern Ireland, in the short and the long term, than an end to violence.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Peter Viggers: Bearing in mind the wide international interest in the whole of the island of Ireland, will my right hon. Friend seek the support of the Republic of Ireland in explaining the present initiative in the United States and elsewhere?

The Prime Minister: I think that my hon. Friend will see that we will have that support.

Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant (Radioactive Discharges)

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): I wish to make a statement on the decisions that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I have made in respect of the authorisation of radioactive discharges from the British Nuclear Fuels site at Sellafield. Copies of our full decision, together with supporting summary documents, are now available in the Vote Office and will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
My right hon. Friend apologises for being unable to be in the House this afternoon: she is attending an Agriculture Council meeting in Brussels on behalf of the United Kingdom.
In April 1992, British Nuclear Fuels applied to Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for new authorisations for the Sellafield site under the Radioactive Substances Act, which would allow for the operation of its thermal oxide reprocessing plant, known as THORP, and a new enhanced actinide removal plant, known as EARP. Those inspectorates considered the application and prepared draft authorisations, which, in accordance with the requirements of the legislation, were made available for public consultation.
Following that consultation, the inspectorates considered the responses that had been made and prepared a report on the issues that had been raised. They concluded that no points had been raised that would cause them to reconsider the terms of their draft authorisations, which they concluded
would effectively protect human health, the safety of the food chain and the environment generally".
In their report submitted to us on 21 May, however, the inspectorates pointed out that a number of wider policy issues had been raised that they had not considered. I announced to the House on 28 June that further papers would be commissioned on those wider issues, and that my right hon. Friend and I would then hold a further round of consultation. We undertook that no decisions on the authorisations would be made until the results of that consultation were known.
A paper on the economic and commercial justification for operating THORP was commissioned from British Nuclear Fuels, and a paper that provided a statement of Government policy on reprocessing and the operation of THORP was prepared within Government. A paper on the environmental aspects of operating THORP was also presented by British Nuclear Fuels. Those papers, together with the report from the inspectorates, were made available as part of the further public consultation.
That consultation began on 4 August and ended on 4 October, although responses received after that date have been considered. Altogether, 42,500 individual responses were received, 63 per cent. of which were opposed to the operation of THORP. Overall, 29 per cent. of respondents, or just under 12,300, called for a hearing or public inquiry. That total included 85 local authorities, although Cumbria county council and Copeland district council—the two authorities with direct responsibility for the Sellafield area —did not consider a hearing to be necessary.


My right hon. Friend and I have been conscious of the great responsibilities placed on us by the Act. We have personally set aside a significant part of our time to consider with great care the points that were made in the consultation, and to reach our decisions. Where appropriate, we have sought the views of other Departments and other public bodies on issues falling within their expertise.
Our responsibilities under the Act require us to consider whether any local authority or other person should be offered a hearing. On this point, my right hon. Friend and I have come to the view that the extensive consultation already carried out—first by the inspectorates and then by ourselves—offered an adequate opportunity for people to make full and informed representations. This is borne out by the quality, quantity and detail of the responses received.
The large amount of information and argument that has been presented provides a fully adequate basis for us to inform ourselves of the weight and substance of the concerns of all interested parties, and to assess and weigh that information and argument.
My right hon. Friend and I have decided not to hold a hearing or a public inquiry, not least because we are satisfied that no issues have been raised that would cause us to conclude that further consultation or debate is necessary.
In reaching our decisions, we have been conscious that any major undertaking to provide fuel for energy production, or to manage the wastes from energy production, carries some element of risk. Risk cannot be eliminated entirely, but it must always be minimised. It is the policy of the United Kingdom to ensure that radioactive discharges from nuclear installations do not result in the public receiving doses in excess of internationally agreed limits designed to protect their health and, furthermore, that those doses are kept as low as reasonably achievable.
In this case, my right hon. Friend and I must reach decisions about authorisations that would permit liquid and gaseous radioactive discharges from the plant on the Sellafield site, including THORP. Our responsibility is to decide under what conditions, if any, the site and its plant may operate. Decisions about whether to use the authorisation to reprocess spent fuel are for others.
In reaching a decision on the authorisations, we have taken account of all the documents circulated, the responses to further consultation and further advice from Departments and other public bodies.
We considered, first, the narrow issues relating to the impact of the proposed authorisations on health and the environment; we believe that only those issues are legally relevant to our statutory duties. On that basis, we have concluded that the discharges permitted by the authorisations would not lead to unacceptable risks to human health or the environment. We have therefore decided that the authorisations should be granted, although we have considered it appropriate to propose a number of amendments to ensure that discharges from the site will be minimised.
The amendments would require British Nuclear Fuels to provide the inspectorates with reports each year on the means for further reducing discharges and on its forward research and development programme for krypton

abatement technology. They would also require it to produce, within six months of the authorisations coming into effect, an analysis of different treatment programmes for dealing with the stored wastes once EARP is available.
To provide more clarity and consistency to the authorisations, amendments would include the incorporation of a specific limit on uranium discharges to the sea, and a total beta limit on atmospheric discharges from the Calder Hall reactors.
Under the Act, because of the conditions that we and the inspectorates are imposing, British Nuclear Fuels is entitled to make further representations. We are writing to it to ascertain whether it wishes to exercise this entitlement.
Although those narrow issues are the ones that we considered to be the limit of our legal responsibilities under the statute, we felt it right to consider the wider issues as if they were legally relevant.
The full decision, which is in the Vote Office, sets out how we have approached that task. It shows that we have considered matters of spent fuel and waste management, decisions to reprocess, economic aspects—including local employment benefits—transport issues and nonproliferation concerns.
Having weighed the various risks and benefits, in particular those arising from the operation of THORP, my right hon. Friend and I have reached the judgment that there is a sufficient balance of advantage in favour of the operation of THORP, and we are satisfied that the activities giving rise to the discharges permitted by the authorisations are justified.
For the reasons set out in detail in the full decision, we have concluded that, had these wider considerations been relevant—[Interruption.] Perhaps I should repeat that last sentence. For the reasons set out in detail in the full decision, we have concluded that, had these wider considerations been relevant, we would still have reached the same decision on the authorisations.
Subject, then, to British Nuclear Fuels' decision on the question of making further representations, the inspectorates will be instructed to issue the authorisations to British Nuclear Fuels, taking account of the amendments that we have required. In accordance with the provisions of the Act, there will be a period of 28 days between the authorisations being issued and their coming into effect.

Mr. Chris Smith: It is clear from some of this morning's newspapers, most notably The Times, that detailed briefings were given to certain journalists about the content of this afternoon's statement. I remind the Secretary of State that the House should be told first about any decision of such importance and magnitude.
Is not that typical of the lack of proper public opennesss that has characterised all the Government's decision making on this matter? Before any of us can make a sensible judgment on whether THORP should be started up, the fullest range of information about all aspects of the plant should be available to the public. That has not been the case, and it is still not the case. It is almost as if the Government had been deliberately concealing information from the public.
May I, therefore, ask the Secretary of State about a number of vital considerations on which we remain in the dark? First, why has there been no publication of the Touche Ross report on the plant's economic prospects?


Why has the report not even been shown to the Comptroller and Auditor General, or some other independent authority? Why, indeed—if some reports are to be believed—have Ministers at the Department of the Environment and the Treasury not seen it?
The Secretary of State may say that this is all to do with the economics of the plant, and not with its environmental implications, but we cannot and should not divorce the two, and the Secretary of State must recognise that fact. It is especially important in the light of the justification requirements of the Euratom treaty. In that connection, can the Secretary of State explain the rather strange claims that are made in paragraphs 129 and 130 of the decision document? The document states:
even doubling the figure used by BNFL for decommissioning costs would not significantly affect the conclusion that the operation of the plant would be likely to bring BNFL significant commercial benefit.
As BNFL's public estimate of profit from the plant overall is £500 million, and as its estimate of decommissioning costs is £900 million, how on earth can the Government reach the conclusions that they have reached in those two paragraphs?
Secondly, why has no information been placed in the public domain about the exact terms of the contracts for foreign fuel? In particular, what will be the impact of the requirement that apparently exists for surplus Japanese plutonium to be stored at Sellafield until it is needed in Japan? Should we not be told about that until it is needed in Japan? Should we not be told about that before the generation of the plutonium is put in hand?
Thirdly, why has there been no clear resolution yet of the issue of waste substitution, whereby smaller amounts of high-level waste could be returned in exchange for the retention of larger amounts of low and intermediate-level waste here in Britain? The Government have told us that a decision will be made at some unspecified time in the future—they confirm that point in paragraph 108 of the decision document issued today—but how can it possibly be sensible to make a decision now that commits us to generating large quantities of waste when the Government have not yet decided what precisely should be done with it?
Fourthly, why has the request for the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee to publish information on waste substitution, and the health and safety implications of returning foreign intermediate waste, been refused—in contravention, surely, of the environmental information regulations passed by the House just a year ago? It has been claimed, I understand, that freedom of information does not apply, because RWMAC is not a public body and is not under the control of Ministers. I put it to the Secretary of State, however, that he appoints its members, funds its work, sets its terms of reference, requires it to undertake specific tasks and has the power to wind it up. How can he possibly claim that it is not under his control?
Fifthly, why is today's decision being announced without any clear information being available to the House or the public about the future of a long-term deep disposal facility for the intermediate-level waste that will be created? In its current annual report, RWMAC says that, even if Sellafield is chosen as the site, it will be 16 years before it can operate. What will happen in the meantime, and what will happen if Sellafield turns out to be an unsuitable site?
Sixthly, why has the report of the public inquiry into the building of a dry storage facility at Torness not yet been published? According to some reports, it concludes that dry storage may be a preferable option to reprocessing. Is that so? If it is, is it not a material consideration in reaching a decision on THORP? Why, then, has there been such a long delay in the report's publication?
In all those respects, the way in which the Government have gone about making their decision has been wholly unacceptable. In sharp contrast to the open way in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) announced his decision on 22 March 1978, the present Government have kept crucial items of information under wraps, well away from public scrutiny. They are still at it, denying us the full information that we need if we are to make a proper judgment on the merits of their decision.
As the Government seem determined to proceed, may I ask them to make absolutely certain that the same furtiveness does not characterise the control and monitoring of emissions from the plant? It is surely vital —especially now, with a very tight tolerance between actual discharges and overall authorisation limits—that the strictest monitoring procedures are in place, and are seen by the public to be implemented properly.
I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement that he expects progressive reductions in discharge levels and that progress will be reported to the inspectorates. Can he guarantee that progress will also be reported to the public? Freedom of information may have been consistently denied by the Government in reaching the decision that they have announced today. I warn them that any denial of access to information during the course of implementation of that decision will not be forgiven.

Mr. Gummer: The House might be forgiven for concluding, following what has been said by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), that the only matter under wraps is the official Opposition's view on the issue. The Government have acted with complete openness, as anyone who reads the decision document will see. Only recently, the House debated THORP and declared its own view. Matters relating to the economic base on which the plant proceeds are, of course, partly to do with the decision; to that extent, they are stated very clearly in the decision letter.
The contracts ensure that all waste is to be sent back; matters of substitution, therefore, are not connected with the authorisations, which are made on the basis of the situation as it obtains. That, too, is made clear in the decision letter. We have consulted RWMAC very fully, and the consultation document from RWMAC is also in the Vote Office for hon. Members to read.
We have discussed in great detail the comparison between dry storage and reprocessing, and have reached certain very clear conclusions, which would in no way be altered by whatever statement results from the inspector's inquiry into Torness.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and I have spent a long time on the investigations, not knowing how we would reach a conclusion—for this was a matter of considerable detail. We are entirely satisfied, however, that our conclusion is based on the facts, and that those facts would not be changed by any further discussion of the matter.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. With the remainder of today's business in mind, I require hon. Members to put their questions briskly, and to be given brisk answers. [Interruption.] Order. I time the statements and the responses from the Opposition Front Bench and take it up with them at an appropriate time.

Mr. Michael Jopling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, having delayed the opening and made himself doubly sure in recent months about safety matters, no one can fairly say that the matter has been entered into lightly or hastily? Can he think of any major project in this country over the years that has been more thoroughly crawled over, debated and inquired into since this project was introduced by the right hon. Members for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) in the 1970s, when the House has endorsed the project three times, when we had the 100-day inquiry, which was the longest that there had ever been, and over the past two years there has been a whole series of other consultations and approval by the—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The House must now come to order. [Interruption.] Order—all hon. Members. I require questions to the Secretary of State, not long statements. The House tends to forget that we are not in the middle of a debate. We have yet to start the debate. I want questions to the Secretary of State.

Mr. Gummer: We have given the subject the very serious consideration that is necessary. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I were not willing to reach a conclusion until we had properly considered the matter. We believe that we have done so and that any fair-minded person would agree with us.

Mr. Simon Hughes: As millions of people around the world think that the Secretary of State and the Minister have made not just a wrong decision but a dangerously wrong decision, will he tell us where in the report—it does not appear anywhere —he justifies increasing the risk of nuclear proliferation around the world, and the creation of more plutonium, of which the world has an abundant excess already, and, on the very day that we talk about peace on the other side of the Irish sea, committing Britain to the reprocessing of nuclear waste, while all informed academic and political opinion suggests that the best way of dealing with it is by deep disposal or dry storage, not reprocessing, which nobody now thinks is a sensible way to proceed?

Mr. Gummer: I believe that the hon. Gentleman has not studied, and could not study with the adequacy that I would expect from him, the decision letter that we have written.

Mr. Hughes: Of course I have.

Mr. Gummer: Well, the hon. Gentleman should not say what is clearly not true about the document.
In addition, I want to say something directly to the hon. Gentleman. He has a responsibility not to trot out the views that he has held for some time without looking at the evidence and the statement we have made. We have carefully sought to face every issue, and if I had been

convinced of his case, I would have refused the authorisations. It is because I am entirely unconvinced of his case that I have authorised those matters.

Mr. Tim Devlin: On behalf of the company in my constituency, Davy Nuclear, which built the plant, I thank the Secretary of State for the comprehensive way in which he has dealt with all the representations and objections and made what will be seen in future years as a sensible and far-sighted decision.

Mr. Gummer: We tried to take all matters into account, and I am glad that my hon. Friend is pleased with the result.

Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Secretary of State aware that, since I and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) presented these proposals in May 1978, there has been a fundamental change? Uranium is in massive supply, the fast breeder reactor has been cancelled, nuclear power has been revealed to be three and a half times as expensive as coal, and there have been accidents at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.
The production by the plant of plutonium sufficient to produce 5,000 bombs of the size of those used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki merits a proper inquiry and a debate and decision by the House. Just as the House reached a decision in 1978, so in this case the House should be asked to make its own decision on the matter.

Mr. Gummer: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will read carefully the document that I have put before him. If he were to do so, he would recognise that all those matters have been taken into account.

Mr. Benn: indicated dissent.

Mr. Gummer: It is no good the right hon. Gentleman shaking his head. They were taken into account. When he reads the document, he will so recognise, unless he is determined before reading it to maintain his present view, which is very different from the view that he once had. The thing that has changed most during that period is the right hon. Gentleman's own views.

Dr. Michael Clark: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Conservative Members would like to congratulate him on the thoroughness with which he has looked into this whole business, and the decisiveness with which he has today given authorisation for THORP? Does he agree that his statement this afternoon will guarantee the maintenance of jobs in Cumbria, ensure that export orders already taken are fulfilled, justify the expenditure put into THORP, and, above all, maintain the credibility of our nuclear industry?

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right. But had the science and the facts pointed otherwise, my right hon. Friend and I would not have authorised the go-ahead for THORP.

Mr. Llew Smith: The present Leader of the House and the Secretary of State for Employment quite rightly voted against THORP in 1978. Is the Minister aware of any statement of theirs changing that position? If not, can we expect their resignations this afternoon?
Secondly, on 6 December, I was informed by the Energy Minister that civil nuclear materials had been taken out of safeguards on 46 occasions since 1990. What evidence can the Secretary of State give the House that


plutonium from THORP will not be removed from safeguards in the same way? Finally, can we have a copy of the Touche Ross report?

Mr. Gummer: The authorisations are given by the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture, acting together in a judicial capacity. Decisions taken by members of the Government at any future or past time are their responsibility. Just as I would be extremely angry were any of my colleagues to try to interfere in the responsibilities that I have, so I have no intention of interfering with their responsibilities.
As to the hon. Gentleman's question about plutonium, that is clearly covered in the document, which I am sure he has not had time to peruse. When he reads it, he will see how we have dealt with the Touche Ross report—

Mr. Smith: And Touche Ross?

Mr. Gummer: When the hon. Gentleman reads that report, he will see how we have dealt with all the economic case.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens (Littleborough and Saddlesworth): Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, as surely as night follows day, there will be a worldwide depletion of oil, gas and coal, and that future generations will have to rely on people such as British Nuclear Fuels, who reprocess spent fuel and store it so that future generations can have the energy that we enjoy today? Why should we let the French take the lead in the nuclear field? We should be long-term players, and go for it.

Mr. Gummer: I am sure that my hon. Friend's views will be echoed by many, but in these circumstances, my right hon. Friend and I were ruled by the facts of science, not by any commercial consideration.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Now that the prime issue in world politics is for counter-proliferation policies to deal with the present turmoil and the turmoil that will come—not now, but in the next centuries, because plutonium and radioactivity are for ever—will not history judge today as the day that the Government went mad and decided hugely to increase the amount of radioactive waste and plutonium that will be sent to the four corners of the earth? Today's scientifically illiterate decision will be regarded by history as a giant error taken by pigmy politicians.

Mr. Gummer: I think that the hon. Gentleman is talking about politics, not about science.

Mr. Flynn: I am a scientist.

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman may be a scientist, but he has obviously not yet read what I have written in the decision document. I do not blame him for that, but I hope that at least he will not bring his prejudices to bear until he has read the document. If he really thinks that my right hon. Friend and I would have given these authorisations if what he said were true, he has an estimate of his fellow Members of which he should be ashamed.

Mr. Richard Page: As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, which looked at the cost of construction of THORP, I know that it became fairly obvious at that time that, with expert marketing and cost control, there was considerable opportunity for exports for this country. Therefore, with

the safety amendments that my right hon. Friend has announced, I welcome the decision that at long last it is to go ahead. Will United Kingdom nuclear power station operators be compelled to use THORP for reprocessing or will they be allowed to continue their existing storage methods on site?

Mr. Gummer: I can assure my hon. Friend that there will be no compulsion.

Mr. Cynog Dafis: I will be very specific and brief. How many Welsh local authorities made representations to the Minister on THORP? What percentage of them expressed quite clearly their opposition to the commissioning of THORP? I emphasise that there will be dismay in Wales and across the sea in the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland, whose shores are washed, and will be washed, by waters polluted by the emissions from Sellafield.

Mr. Gummer: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would want to reassure any of those who fall within the categories that he mentioned that I would not have given the authorisations were I not sure that they properly protected public health and the environment. If I had thought that they did not do so, I would not have given the authorisations. I am happy to send the hon. Gentleman a list of the local authorities that wrote to us.

Mr. Keith Mans: My right hon. Friend will be aware that his decision will be widely welcomed in the north-west, especially in Cumbria and in my county of Lancashire. Will he now back the efforts of the nuclear industry's trade union movement, especially the THORP nuclear workers support organisation, which is supported by the GMB and the Amalgamated Engineering and Electricial Union and which is seeking to persuade Labour-controlled Lancashire county council not to back any effort that might be made by Greenpeace to seek a judicial review of my right hon. Friend's decision?

Mr. Gummer: I thank my hon. Friend for his support. I hope that he will now accept that it was reasonable to have longer to consider the matter so that people could be absolutely sure that everything had been taken into account. Given the role of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and myself, the other matters to which my hon. Friend referred are matters for others.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: The point has been well made that when the decision was first made about THORP in 1978, the world situation with regard to plutonium production was very different from what it is today. What risk assessment has the Secretary of State made of what seems to us to be a highly irresponsible decision to pour surplus plutonium on to the world market in today's increasingly unstable world?

Mr. Gummer: If the hon. Lady reads the decision letter, she will see that we have dealt with that matter very clearly. With regard to these very serious matters, she should not use those phrases, which are very far from the truth.

Mr. Julian Brazier: As my right hon. Friend has obviously taken the proliferation issue extremely seriously, may I urge him to continue, through


his inspectorate, to monitor very carefully the physical security of plutonium in storage, in transit and, above all, in terms of with whom we trade in it?

Mr. Gummer: I shall ensure that my right hon. Friends who are responsible for that know exactly what my hon. Friend has said. I am sure that they will give an exact and detailed response.

Mr. Frank Cook: To what peaceful purpose will the Secretary of State's customers put the liberated plutonium? What consultations took place with the Irish Government?

Mr. Gummer: On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, plutonium is already used in MOX fuel to provide fuel for nuclear power stations. Customers have said that they intend to use it for that. The Irish Government made their opinions very clear to us in part of the consultations.

Dr. Robert Spink: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that nuclear waste is an international problem and that there will be a problem in decommissioning British nuclear power stations in future? Does he agree that, in terms of the environment and safety, the best way to deal with the problem is to use THORP plant? That is a much better way than dry storage.

Mr. Gummer: I do not think that the two are directly comparable. Dry storage might well lead to the need to reprocess at the end of the dry storage period. There is no direct comparison. We must remember, however, that there is risk in the production of energy in any circumstances. It is our job to try to look at that risk sensibly and carefully and to reach a proper conclusion. One of the sadnesses is that some people concern themselves with frightening people without recognising that other methods may be riskier than those that are chosen. The Liberal party, above all, is doing that.

Mr. Eric Martlew: I am sure that the decision will be welcomed on the west coast of Cumbria, and especially by those who work at Sellafield and by those who will be taken on. Is it not cynical, however, that the Government should hold back the decision on RAF Carlisle until today? On the day when they have made an announcement on THORP which will increase jobs, they have cut 800 jobs in Carlisle. We need a mixed economy in Cumbria, not one based simply on the nuclear industry.

Mr. Gummer: I think that I will answer the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. Decisions were not made on the basis of providing jobs. If it had been clear to us that the authorisations should not be given for scientific reasons, we would not have given them. However, I am happy that, as the authorisations are clearly the right course, they will provide further jobs in Cumbria.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my right hon. Friend deal with the very damaging report produced by Greenpeace, which stated that there would be 600 deaths if the plant were to be opened? Will he reassure my constituents that that report was rubbish?

Mr. Gummer: I do not have to deal with that myself, I can quote RWMAC, the official body that deals with such matters. It said that that report was misleading and should not be used in that way. I am sure that no hon. Member would want to associate himself with that kind of report.

Mr. Neil Gerrard: Will the Minister think again about some of his earlier replies and accept that the commercial demand for plutonium is far lower than it was when THORP was first suggested, that fast-breeder reactors are not going to be built now and that the only significant use for plutonium is in the construction of nuclear weapons? Does he understand that the stockpiling of plutonium produced by THORP, whether or not it is stored securely, will be an incentive for other countries to acquire a nuclear capability at a time when we should be doing our utmost to stop nuclear proliferation?

Mr. Gummer: My right hon. Friend and I covered that point in the document before the House. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's arguments and that is why on this ground, as on others, I have allowed the authorisations to go forward.

Mr. Harry Cohen: Who in the Government considered the issue of nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism, which arise from giving THORP the go-ahead? Why have the Government given those matters such a low weighting in their considerations? Is not the decision immensely dangerous and against national and international interests?

Mr. Gummer: This is a matter not for the Government but for my right hon. Friend and me. We reached our conclusions in a very long series of meetings, in which we sought to find the best answer and to carry out our responsibilities under the Act. We took very considerable care to consider proliferation. We have said what we thought about that in the decision letter. I take a different view from the hon. Gentleman. I have spent a great deal of time examining the matter and reaching my judgment. I hope that he will take as much time.

Mr. George Howarth: Throughout his statement, the Secretary of State has repeatedly dodged answering questions and requests to publish the Touche Ross report by referring hon. Members to the decision itself. The decision only covers the economic case in three short pages. In the light of that, it is impossible to assess what it means. Will the Secretary of State now take a decision and tell the House that he will, in due course, publish the Touche Ross report so that people can make an informed judgment about the case and not be, as we are at the moment, left in the dark?

Mr. Gummer: It must surely be the best proof of the commercial sense of such a matter that a body wishes to proceed and that contracts are in place that make the procedure profitable. The matters that relate to the authorisation are fully covered. It is not my purpose to cover matters that do not relate to the authorisations, even though I have taken into account with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food wider matters that are not held to be legally our responsibility.

Northern Ireland

Rev. Ian Paisley: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the situation arising in Northern Ireland as the result of the Prime Minister's signing of the joint declaration with the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic.
I am aware that all that I can do is underscore that this matter is specific, important and urgent and that I cannot go into the argument, but, because of the Prime Minister's statement and the remarks of other right hon. and hon. Members, the House is aware of the importance of the situation in Northern Ireland.
In Northern Ireland, we do not have any local authorities that can deal with matters such as this. Our local authorities empty bins, look after graveyards and deal with recreation. They do not have other powers. Therefore, it is essential that every democratic opportunity be taken by the House to air a matter of such grave importance. After all, we have been told today that this matter is going to bring peace. We have heard statements about peace in a week and peace at Christmas, but surely the House should take time to discuss the matter.
This week, we have had guillotines on important Bills. Surely, before the recess, we should have an opportunity to discuss this matter. Points of view should be argued and answers given. All hon. Members know the inadequacy of statements, and you, Madam Speaker, have called our attention to the fact that we must ask questions and not make speeches. I put this matter to the House on behalf of my constituents and the people of Northern Ireland 'who feel that, if all the eulogies that have been paid to the statement are true, the House should take time to discuss it, and discuss it thoroughly.

Madam Speaker: I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said. I have to give my decision without stating any reasons. I am afraid that I do not consider that the matter which the hon. Gentleman has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20. I therefore cannot submit the application to the House.

points of order

Mr. Terry Rooney: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wish to raise two aspects of written question No. 134, which appeared on yesterday's Order Paper. First, does the convention on hon. Members interfering in other hon. Members' constituencies apply to written questions? Secondly, a written question was tabled yesterday, but, at 9 o'clock yesterday morning, the local authorities concerned received a press release from the Minister giving the answer, before the Vote Office was open and before hon. Members representing the relevant constituencies knew that the question had been tabled.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must raise his latter point with the Minister concerned. On his first point, the hon. Member raises a matter of convention rather than a matter of order. I prefer to leave particular cases to hon. Members to resolve between themselves. In general, however, there is no doubt that it is far preferable for hon. Members to inform colleagues when they touch on events in their constituencies. That is the courteous thing to do. I should like hon. Members to continue in that way.

Dr. Robert Spink: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Are you aware that hon. Members have been challenged to use words such as "victrix" and "reverist" in the House? Is that in order, or is it balderdash?

Mr. Paul Flynn: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Three hon. Members—I have informed one of them at least—have earned for their constituents £1,000 in goods today by using the Chamber for what I believe to be a publicity stunt for a commercial organisation. Although all hon. Members would like to do the best for their constituents, and we would all like £1,000 worth of goods to distribute, the only way in which we can do that is by giving publicity to a commercial organisation. Although that might be fairly innocent in this situation, could it not lead to other commercial organisations putting pressure on hon. Members to use the House and our powers of influence here for purely commercial ends?

Several hon. Members: rose——

Madam Speaker: No, I can deal with it, thank you very much. I understand that there was some charitable element in what took place.

Mr. David Shaw: It was a business.

Madam Speaker: Order. I am on my feet. But I cannot approve of hon. Members being incited to play games with our proceedings. [Interruption.] Order. I have not yet finished; I am on my feet. That is what has taken place today. Nor do I approve of hon. Members agreeing to do so and that is what has happened today. I hope that there will be no more tomfoolery, because I deprecate it very greatly.

Ms Glenda Jackson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. At 3.30 pm, a written answer from the Secretary of State for Health was placed in the Vote Office while the right hon. Lady herself was holding a press conference at Richmond house. Both answer and press conference deal with the financing and


delivery of health care in my constituency. Although I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has decided to keep the renal unit at the Royal Free hospital, is not it disgraceful that, yet again, a Minister of the Crown has revealed changes in Government policy and funding to the press before they were detailed to the House?

Madam Speaker: I understand that that is the subject of a written answer which was made available to the House at 3.30 pm today. I understand that the Secretary of State also gave a press conference at that time. Possibly the press has picked up on an embargoed advance briefing and has breached that embargo. I deprecate such breaches, just as I deprecate any statements that are made outside the House to the media before they are made to the House.

Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I apologise to the House? I certainly did not appreciate that I was breaking the rules of the House when I mentioned that word. It is always a temptation, when not many Conservative Members have white beards, to try to play Father Christmas to our constituents.

Madam Speaker: There was no breaking of the rules of the House, but the hon. Gentleman was playing games with our proceedings. That is what I deprecate and I hope that it will never happen again.

Ms Liz Lynne: I seek your guidance, Madam Speaker. Is it in order for the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Leader of the House to seek to disrupt Back-Bench business? I thought that the Leader of the House was meant to protect Back-Bench Members. Is it in order for that Parliamentary Private Secretary to remain in his position? May I refer the matter to the Procedure Committee?

Madam Speaker: There is no appeal from one day to the next and it is up to individual hon. Members to use the Standing Orders or the procedures of the House, provided that they do so correctly.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: I have dealt with that point of order, thank you very much. [Interruption.] I have dealt with that point of order. There is no further point of order. I know

precisely what happened. The matter should have been dealt with right away. It is up to hon. Members to use the Standing Orders and the procedures of the House, provided that they do so correctly.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I make it absolutely clear that none of that money whatsoever will go to anybody's constituency—

Madam Speaker: Order. I have dealt with that matter.

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Notification of the two statements this afternoon did not appear on the annunciator until 10 minutes to 2. I realise that that has nothing to do with you, Madam Speaker, because you deal only with the notification of private notice questions. The provision of information at 1 o'clock is a very strong convention, to allow hon. Members to organise their afternoons so that they are present for statements. Your ruling has always been that, if hon. Members are not present for statements, they are not allowed to put questions. Therefore, it is very important that information is available at 1 o'clock so that hon. Members can plan their afternoons. The Leader of the House was responsible for the difficulties which were created for hon. Members this afternoon by the incompetence which he undoubtedly displayed. I hope that that is not a precedent and that you would deprecate any future occurrences.

Madam Speaker: As a matter of fact, the matter has nothing to do with the Leader of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Order. The matter is the responsibility of the authorities of the House.
I have to tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that I did not notice that the information was not on the annunciator. The hon. Gentleman is quite right that it should be on the annunciator by 1 o'clock to allow hon. Members to make preparations. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will take the matter up as soon as I have left the Chair.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 21 JANUARY

Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. James Couchman
Mrs. Ann Winterton
Mr. John Hutton

Orders of the Day — Statutory Sick Pay Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a second time.
I will endeavour to be brief, both because this is a short and simple Bill and because I want to leave the Opposition a full opportunity to spell out their alternative proposals —if they have any. If not, the House can have the pleasure of hearing the Opposition defend the current arrangements for statutory sick pay, even though they have consistently opposed them since they were introduced in 1983.
The Bill will give employers a greater incentive to improve the health, motivation and attendance of their employees. It will reduce and simplify the administrative burden of statutory sick pay. At the same time, we will ensure that employers in general have lower costs. Small employers will be fully reimbursed for the cost of illness after four weeks. The Bill will ensure, from April 1995, that lower-paid employees get the higher rate of sick pay.
Britain has the highest rate of sick leave of any country in the EC except Holland. The total cost to British industry of sickness is enormous. Recent surveys put the total direct costs at somewhere between £9 billion and £13 billion a year.
The extent of sickness and sick leave in a firm is not primarily the result of external factors outside an employer's control. The rate of sick leave varies greatly between firms, even within the same industry. High rates of sick leave often reflect poor motivation, stressful relationships, inadequate working environment, lack of interest in staff well-being and poor monitoring of absence.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Does that apply to Members of Parliament?

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman makes a point about the attendance records of hon. Members. I will tell him that, of the 200 best-attending hon. Members, 191 were Tories and only six were members of the Labour party.
The variations are within the control of management. When managers take an interest in the health, attendance and well-being of staff, they can substantially reduce levels of absence.
For example, an Audit Commission study three years ago criticised London boroughs for their deplorably high level of sick leave. On average, local government workers took 17 days off sick a year—twice the national average. The Audit Commission advised them how this could be improved and they have taken note of that advice. The latest figures show that the average is now reduced to 11 days. That is still high by comparison with private industry, but it shows what can be achieved by better management.
There are considerable variations within the private sector. Japanese companies have put great emphasis on the motivation and the well-being of their employees. As a result, according to the Industrial Society, Japanese-owned companies in Britain lose little more than half as many days through sickness as the British average.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Leaving aside small employers, is the Secretary of State aware that many employers do not pay statutory sick pay and that others sack people if they are sick? I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider two brief cases before he concludes his speech.
First, an employee in the west midlands, who has been employed by a firm for three years, was off work due to an accident at work. The employer made it clear that he never pays statutory sick pay. Secondly, the citizens advice bureau in Greater Manchester reports an increasing number of dismissals from work in connection with illness. Is that not a serious problem and will the Secretary of State comment on those cases before he concludes?

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman must be mistaken. It is a statutory scheme which employers have a statutory obligation to pay. Some employers do pay occupational sick pay, which is higher and more generous than statutory sick pay. Some do not claim statutory sick pay back from the state, although they pay the amount or more than the amount and are continuing to pay it to their employees. I will get on to the question of the response of companies in recruiting and maintaining in employment people with poor health records later.

Mr. John Carlisle: My right hon. Friend may have heard of Beijing flu, which is apparently raging in the country at the moment. He may like to know that a constituent company of mine which I visited the other day reported that of the 40 sub-contractors which they use, not one suffered from Beijing flu last month. Of the 10 people whom they employ directly, some seven have, on the basis that the state will pay for their statutory sick pay. Does not that emphasise that people will swing the lead if they think that the taxpayer will pay for it?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend makes a telling point. It is certainly true that there are variations in employment which cannot be explained by medical factors. The prevalence of what the Foreign Office would prefer us to call Peking flu is one of those factors.
Today, a company has welcomed the Government's action in putting responsibility for sick pay back with companies. That company is Unipart, one of our leading manufacturers. It has taken the lead, particularly in improving employee conditions. Absenteeism at one of its factories used to be about 8 per cent. a year. Two years ago, Unipart introduced new working practices. People now work in teams in an improved working environment, with more challenging work and much more control over their own process. As a result, absenteeism has dropped to less than 2 per cent. and it has remained below that level. That is despite improvements in the generosity of the company's own sick pay scheme.
Yesterday, the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) mocked the idea of employers
deciding to expand their occupational health service—perhaps installing a gym."—[Official Report, 14 December 1993; Vol. 234, c. 876.]
Unipart's management did just that, because they see employees as stakeholders. They believe that the benefits in employee fitness are self-evidently of value to the firm. Unipart has publicly welcomed the Government's decision to put the responsibility for sick pay back with companies. It sees that as challenging management to search for the


root causes of absenteeism and it believes that the net result will improve the performance of the United Kingdom economy.
However, the reimbursement of the cost of statutory sick pay reduces employers' incentive to take positive action to improve the health and attendance of their staff. At the same time, it sends a message that that is not their responsibility, nor within their control. It means that good employers who minimise sick leave are effectively subsidising poor employers who do nothing to tackle the problem.
Moreover, smaller employers in general have a much lower level of absence through sickness than do large employers. The CBI/Percom study, for example, showed that large companies with over 5,000 employees have twice the level of absence through sickness as do companies with fewer than 100 employees. Of the smallest employers with 10 or fewer staff, 37 per cent. had no staff absences through sickness long enough to qualify for statutory sick pay in 1991–92. By abolishing reimbursement, I believe that we will give employers greater incentive to motivate employees, to care for their health and to monitor their absence.
At the same time, I intend to reduce employers' national insurance contributions by more than enough to offset the impact on employers as a whole of ending reimbursement of statutory sick pay. The ending of the 80 per cent. reimbursement of statutory sick pay means that employers would forgo about £695 million in 1994–95, but there will be £25 million of special help for small employers.
The reduction in employers' national insurance rates will cut their national insurance contributions by some £830 million next year. That saving will reach nearly £1 billion by 1996–97. Therefore, employers in aggregate will be some £160 million pounds better off next year as a result of the combined impact of the changes and, as employers respond to the incentive to improve attendance, they will be substantially better off still.

Dr. Keith Hampson: Let me draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the problem that most people are not sick for four weeks or more, so that the bulk of costs on all sizes of companies will fall on the employer. Could not Peking flu create acute cash flow problems to a small company with a sudden abnormal rate of sickness? Will he consider whether there should be full reinbursement to small companies if a certain percentage of the national insurance contribution is crossed?

Mr. Lilley: Particular harm is caused by the prolonged absence of key employees in small firms. However, small employers usually have lower rates of sickness and absenteeism than larger companies, so they will be net beneficiaries from the change. There may be odd weeks when they suffer because a large number of staff are off sick, but they will be gaining throughout the rest of the year. Overall, they will benefit financially from the change, particularly if they have lower-paid employees. They should also welcome the change because it gives them greater control over their own bills.

Sir Michael Grylls: It would be extremely helpful if, in the spirit of deregulation, my right hon. Friend would consider whether some of the paperwork and administrative burdens of smaller firms

could be simplified. Will he examine the role of the DSS or the social security inspectors who might take a more lenient view if a smaller firm genuinely finds it difficult to understand the complex regulations, and perhaps be slightly more tolerant than in the past? Perhaps the DTI one-stop shops could advise smaller employers on those aspects of book keeping, record keeping and understanding regulations?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. An intervention is not a speech, and that was rapidly becoming one.

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend has raised some important points about the burden on employers and the opportunities for deregulation.
The changes will reduce the burden on employers and open up scope for further reductions in due course. As for the enforcement of existing rules by inspectors, I shall take account of my hon. Friend's point, but I believe that the actual number of legal cases ever brought under the rules is extremely limited. I recall only one and the fine was £30. Nonetheless, we do not want onerous enforcement measures and I shall take on board my hon. Friend's point.
I propose to reduce the highest rate of employers' national insurance by 0·2 per cent. from 10·4 per cent. to 10·2 per cent. and the three lower rates by a whole percentage point. That will particularly benefit employers of less highly paid staff and make it more attractive for them to take on extra employees.
A firm whose employees all earn £170 a week will save £88 over the year on national insurance for each employee. If the firm has average sickness, it will forgo reimbursement of SSP over the year worth £43 per employee, so on average it will gain £45 per employee per year.
A company with the same pay level but twice the national sick leave will still break even on the two changes.

Mr. Donald Dewar: May I make a brief point requesting information. When statutory sick pay becomes one level of return for the person who is ill, how will the uprating work? I understand that the upper level, which will now be combined with the others, has been frozen since 1990. It does not fall under the obvious Rossi or RPI machinery. How will it be uprated in future?

Mr. Lilley: I shall make a wise judgment each year on the amount by which it will be uprated.
Small organisations usually have below average sickness levels, but their operations may be harder hit by the prolonged absence of even a single member of staff. I therefore intend to increase the special help that we give small employers and extend it to more of them.
At present, smaller employers receive 100 per cent. reimbursement of statutory sick pay on absences in excess of six weeks. In future, they will receive 100 per cent. reimbursement after only four weeks. At present, firms with total national insurance contribution bills of £16,000 qualify for such help. In future, I shall extend it to firms with bills of up to £20,000.
Yesterday, the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) said that we had attempted to conceal the fact that the abolition of 80 per cent. reimbursement would apply to small employers as well as to large ones. That is absolute nonsense.


Let me read the letter that we sent to all the small business organisations on the day of the Budget. On statutory sick pay it said:
80 per cent. reimbursement will cease from 6 April 1994 i.e. there will be no reimbursement of statutory sick pay payable for sickness on or after that date.
That could not be clearer. It continues:
special help for small employers will be retained and enhanced. Employers remitting national insurance contributions totalling £20,000 or less in 1993–94 will be eligible for 100 per cent. reimbursement of statutory sick pay for illness lasting longer than four weeks.".
There was no attempt to conceal that. We have an interest in employers understanding the changes and implementing them rapidly in time for next April.
Our proposals will help 50,000 extra employers, some 750,000 in total—that is two thirds of all employers—at a total cost of £25 million.
Small employers will also benefit more from the reduction in national insurance rates. The reduction is greater for employees on low earnings who tend to form a high proportion of the work force in small companies.
The Budget also included a number of other measures to help small employers and those proposals have been welcomed by industry.
Abolition of reimbursement will also reduce the administrative burden on employers. They will no longer have to work out their total statutory sick pay bill for the year in order to calculate how much national insurance they are due to pay.
The abolition of the lower rate of statutory sick pay will be introduced in the Bill to reform invalidity benefit, with effect from April 1995. It will further reduce the burden on employers. Previously, they had to calculate each employee's average earnings to determine which rate of statutory sick pay applied and how much they could claim. That will no longer be necessary when there is only one rate.
Earlier this year, we set up a working party with employers to examine the scope for cutting red tape in the statutory sick pay scheme. We shall be discussing with that group whether ending reimbursement of statutory sick pay further opens up scope for reducing the burden on employers without affecting employees' rights.
As a result of the changes, British employers will retain their relative advantage over their continental competitors. European Community employers face much greater burdens than we do. For example, German employers must pay full wages for the first six weeks of illness, yet they receive no reimbursement and pay higher social security charges. Dutch employers have to pay sick employees 70 per cent. of their earnings up to £282 per week for up to a year and they bear five sixths of the cost.
The Opposition have claimed that ending reimbursement of statutory sick pay will lead to employers sacking sick employees and being more reluctant to take on disabled staff. They made the same claim when the rate of reimbursement was reduced from 100 per cent. to 80 per cent. in 1991.
There has been no evidence of sick employees being sacked or companies being more reluctant to employ people who have been sick. I will receive soon the Centre for Social Policy Research report examining the effects of the 1991 changes and I will publish it as soon as I do. I understand that it will not help the Opposition's case and that there is no evidence that disabled staff have been affected. In fact, it would be perverse as well as inhumane

for employers to reduce job opportunities for the disabled. The evidence is that they have a better than average attendance record. The more that that is widely known, the more we shall be pleased.
We shall continue to promote employment opportunities for disabled people. I was pleased to announce in the social security statement that the disability working allowance will be made more attractive. From April 1995, beneficiaries will be entitled to free prescriptions, free dental treatment and other NHS benefits.

Dr. Robert Spink: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am a registered disabled person, yet I returned the joint third best participation rate in the House in the last Session?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is proof of many great truths and I congratulate him on his record. As I said earlier, he is not joined in the top 200 by many Opposition Members. Last night, we had sad evidence of an outbreak of sickness on the Labour Benches, when the Opposition were unable to muster a quorum to continue their own Consolidated Fund debates. It is a difficult area for the Labour party in respect of attendance records and of previous Labour Governments.
The last Labour Government imposed a surcharge on employers' national insurance that brought the total amount paid by employers to 13·5 per cent. of their pay bill. If that rate applied today, industry would bear an additional burden of ·8 billion a year.
The final consequence of our changes is that once employers meet the full cost of SSP, it will become a form of pay and thus be subject to the EC equal treatment directive. Women and men will be entitled to statutory sick pay on the same basis. As a result, women will be entitled to receive it until the age of 65, rather than age 60 at present. That is catered for in the Bill.
Statutory sick pay has been successful in meeting its aim of delivering sick pay through the wage packet rather than requiring employees to collect it at benefit offices. It cuts out wasteful duplication of work by employers and the state and the opportunities for a further reduction of duplication are enhanced by the Bill.
The introduction of SSP cut civil service numbers by 3,700 and ended the anomaly whereby employees received more money when off sick than at work. I shall shortly introduce a new Bill to reform the whole structure of incapacity benefits. It will create a single SSP rate from April 1995, which will help those in lower-paid jobs. The overall structural reform will provide a more integrated set of sickness benefits than ever before and it reflects the first fruits of our sector-by-sector reform of social security. We have now tackled sickness benefits and we are in the process of improving them and providing an up-to-date and well-focused set of sickness benefits.
The Bill will improve incentives to employers for increasing the well-being, attendance and health of their staff; lead to reduced costs for industry; and provide a more rational benefits structure for the future. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Donald Dewar: I appreciate the succinct way in which the Secretary of State put his case. His short speech set out the bare essentials of the


proposals encapsulated in the Bill. It is part of a package deal offered by the Government and interconnects with a number of interesting arguments.
There is no doubt that this important legislation deserves the proper attention that the House will want to give over the next few hours. I have no intention of re-opening the argument about the timetable motion, but it is important that the House examines what is being offered and its consequences and significance.
One problem is that the unified Budget took some of us by surprise. The new procedures are difficult, for a unified Budget presents a mound of issues. Everything but the kitchen sink was thrown in, in terms of fiscal revenue raising and public expenditure. There is a danger that we shall lose definition and not focus as we should on all the Budget's component parts with the clarity that they deserve. I am glad of this opportunity to put that right.
In yesterday's allocation of time debate, we heard that the Bill has only one effective clause. Clause 1 abolishes for large employers—those that account for 85 per cent. of the work force—the 80 per cent. rebate on statutory sick pay. Clearly, that is of interest to them and to those of us concerned about the way that the system works.
I do not suggest that that comes entirely as a surprise. The Secretary of State reminded the House that the rebate system was introduced just over 10 years ago. Early in its career, it became clear that the Government had reservations about the way that it operated or at least about its part in the social security system. In 1990, a significant change occurred, when the 100 per cent. rebate plus the 7 per cent. to reimburse companies for the administrative charges that they incurred was reduced to 80 per cent.—and now that is being obliterated. It has been suspected for some time that that was the start of a slide into oblivion in terms of both the rebate and Government involvement.
In connection with yesterday's debate on the guillotine motion, to which my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House contributed, there were exchanges between members of the Public Accounts Committee and the Permanent Secretary at the Department of Social Security. I make no complaint that they were slightly "Yes, Minister" in their tone. We were presented with the Government's usual "We have no plans" formula. That kind of response gives plausibility to the theory that in this country, one should believe nothing until it has been officially denied. That was a further warning shot about the likely course of events. Expectations or fears, depending on one's point of view, are amply borne out by the Bill now before the House.
The majority of employees will depend no longer on the subsidy provided by the rebate but on their employers' resources—the scheme will be funded by industry. I hope that the Secretary of State will not think me over-partisan when I say that that is strike one for the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and for his loyal lieutenant at the Department of Social Security. It is at least one area where it has been discovered that it will be possible for the Government to withdraw altogether, which is the proposition we are asked to consider.
I accept that many companies have occupational schemes that incorporate sickness cover. However, a much-quoted 1989 survey suggested that 91 per cent. of employees were covered by such an arrangement. I do not

want to debate that point at length, but I enter the fair caveat that that figure of 91 per cent. has been criticised as misleading, partly because many schemes exclude part of the work force from that provision. That is specifically the case with manual workers. The cover is not nearly as impressive on analysis as that headline figure suggests.
Statutory sick pay is still important. It is common ground between myself and the Minister that statutory sick pay is still a foundation of importance to those who are suffering a period of ill-health. In the current year the higher rate—the rate that will become effective—is £52·50. I was interested in what the Secretary of State had to say about the future of that matter. He used a nice phrase —he will "use a wise judgment year by year". There are societies in which wise men are respected. It is probably true in our society as well, but there is unfortunately a preliminary dispute as to who is wise. If we could agree about that, happy unanimity would break out.
There is an important point in the simple question that I asked, which I draw to the Secretary of State's attention. At the end of the day, companies will have to pay the higher rate which, in his wisdom, he decides; they have no control over that. That cost is totally out of their hands.
If there is a rebate system, there is a real discipline—the discipline, perhaps, of the account book—on the Secretary of State when he makes such decisions. He has to weigh all types of factors, but one of them is that the Chancellor has to find the cash, because if he puts up generously the rebate goes up. Now he is in the position in which perhaps he will resist those temptations—I immediately concede that, knowing him—but in which he will be deciding what someone else has to pay. He will not have to foot the bill himself. There is no suggestion, presumably, that there will be a special reduction in the employer's national insurance contribution every year if the Minister is especially generous on the uprating.
I mention that, and emphasise it, because it seems to underline some of the uncertainties that we are building into the system for employers. Although perhaps on occasions it is rather arrogantly assumed that the Labour party does not care about the problems of employers, I am not unconscious of the difficulties that can, and do, confront employers. That is an important short point.

Mr. David Willetts: Is the hon. Gentleman arguing against the proposal on the grounds that it will lead to sick pay being higher than it would be otherwise?

Mr. Dewar: No. I must remonstrate with the hon. Member, as I had to earlier this week. He is an alert and precocious child. He sees a point and he cannot resist getting up and making it. It is quite an endearing habit and it adds a bit of variety to sometimes rather dry and arcane debates about the world of social security, but it is not a sensible point or a point of substance. I am merely suggesting to him that there is an instability, and perhaps a potential concern about a looseness in the system. There is a divorce between he who takes the decision and he who is accountable and pays the bills. That might be a principle which commends itself to a gentleman of somewhat dry and right-wing views, generally, in the economic field.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Has my hon. Friend read a splendid publication called "The Age of Entitlement" by the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), who has ridden a coach and horses through many of the claims of the present Government? Specifically, he


says that they have vastly exaggerated the effects of the demographic change and have used it as a pretext for many of their damaging policies.

Mr. Dewar: I must confess—probably some of my colleagues may think that it is a confession—that I often read the works of the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts). [Interruption.] I sometimes wonder a little bit why I do it. I think that it is because, at an early stage in my career when I did not know much about the social security world, someone said that (a) he was clever and (b) he had the ear of Ministers. Those theories live on. On that basis I have tended to read the hon. Member's pamphlets.
I agree that in that publication there is some quite useful corrective copy to the rather excitable view of the demographic time-bomb, the dependency ratio and so on, which tends to be the mark of the Government Front Bench. It would be wrong, however, if I went too far down that road. I know that Second Readings are wide, but I might find myself off a road and into a field if I follow my hon. Friend in that matter, so I shall turn back to the Bill.
I confess that when I first saw the Bill I rather misinterpreted it. My first thought was that it was an enormous transfer of financial burden to British industry at a time when the Prime Minister, as it happened, was daily on my television set telling me about the need to compete and to keep our industry competitive. Having considered the trade figures of only a few days ago, I agree that that is something to which we should give a high priority.
When I realised that nearly £750 million would disappear mysteriously from the public accounts and was to be met by British industry, I was very worried indeed. I accept that that is an over-simplification. Perhaps I swallowed the "one effective clause" theory about the matter because I considered the primary legislation. There are important counter-balancing propositions which appear, not in primary legislation, but, as you will be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, in regulations that we have not seen and which will no doubt appear before the House at some future date.
I made the argument the other day, so I shall only repeat it in the briefest possible form; I find it rather unsatisfactory that things of so much importance are clone by regulation. The one outstanding characteristic of a regulation is that one has to take it or leave it; one cannot attempt to amend it. One has a brief debate. Sometimes brief debates are mercies, but one cannot have any shade of grey; one cannot try to adapt and improve but can only vote against. That is especially useless, it seems to me, in terms of the job that Parliament should be doing, but no doubt that is an Opposition point of view. I may have a slightly different angle on that in perhaps a couple of years' time.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Would it now be logical for the hon. Gentleman to follow his concern for employers through to its logical conclusion and say that, now that he has realised that employers get more out of the Bill than they lose, the best thing to do would be to go for a brief debate, support the Bill and let us have an early night?

Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman, who has earned a reputation of being one of the most abrasive members of the House in many ways—[interruption]—often makes a useful contribution, I think especially in social security matters. It is perhaps a result of his experience, or previous experience, on the Social Security Select Committee. I

often think that if people know a little about a subject it helps a sense of reason to develop. In any event, I shall have to develop my argument and hon. Members will find out that he has slightly misinterpreted me, but no doubt we can put that right if he remains with me.
Not only do Ministers assert that the Bill will be neutral in its impact because the 0·2 per cent. and the subsidiary cuts in the other classes of employers' contributions will offset the £750 million, but they suggest that it is even a little more generous than neutral. One of the difficulties —I am not in a position personally to test it because there has hardly been time and there has not been time even to investigate in any depth with the various organisations that have an interest—is that it is a proposition that has been met with a unanimity of cynicism by the employers' organisations, with one exception. It is an important exception. The Confederation of British Industry, in a rather tortured press release, managed to be loyal at the end of the day, although with so many caveats and reservations that I am not sure that it did not do more credit to the loyalty than to the rationality. I have the document here.
If we consider the views of other people, whether it be the Federation of Small Businesses or the National Farmers Union—it is not often that I have the opportunity to quote the NFU in that type of context—there is a strong feeling that the situation is not as simplistic or as simple as the Minister has suggested, and that there will be very substantial difficulties for people on the employers' side of the divide in the period ahead.
While Ministers assert and employers doubt, I think that we can agree on certain things. One is that if, as a result of this massive transfer, it will be up to the employer to meet the bill, it is likely to be a permanent situation under this Conservative Government. Who knows, it may be a permanent situation, full stop? The other side of the equation, however, is that although the 0·2 per cent. might be a generous reduction in contribution when it is introduced, once there have been some upratings or variations and a Chancellor comes under pressure and does not want to increase direct taxation but thinks that he can get away with a national insurance hike, I defy anyone to say whether that 0·2 per cent. compensation will survive; it could easily go.
The argument about additionality is similar. Many of us became involved in it and retreated in horror—defeated, confused and bewildered. Is it really additional money or is it something that the Treasury has taken into account in its calculations? Is it substitute money and not additional money? That is the problem for employers. They will certainly have to meet the £750 billion or its equivalent —it may be a little higher year on year—but there is no guarantee that they will receive anything like the same compensation after a year or two.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right, but is it not also true that employers whose workers have adverse working conditions that affect their health are likely to lose, even in the first instance?

Mr. Dewar: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, as I certainly should have got round to mentioning that fact. As the Minister will be aware, some employers' organisations have been alarmed about firms operating within the construction industry, for example. There is a fear that the employers who will suffer most are those in industries where there is a lot of wear and tear on the human frame


and where, despite improving methods that enable more working under cover, workers have to suffer harsh climatic conditions and destructive work.
The trouble with working on global figures and averaging things out is that many people are not average and they suffer. The National Farmers Union said that. I cannot resist suggesting that the union obviously did not receive the Minister's letter, which described the matter with such clarity, but made the mistake of relying on the Chancellor's Budget statement. I notice that the union's head of parliamentary affairs, in a letter to Members of Parliament—or certainly to me—on 13 December refers to Government statements as "misleading and confusing", quotes the Chancellor and says that neither of the two statements quoted
can be considered to be accurate.
There is obviously a great deal of anger about the way in which farmers have been treated. I referred to the NFU because it has made some calculations, which I cannot challenge or verify from personal experience as I have never been a farmer or done farming books. The NFU is certainly in a position to do such calculations and states that some farmers will be adversely affected—especially the more generous who pay above the farm worker's minimum wage, who will be penalised for doing so.
I am pointing that out because the information comes from a genuine source and underlines the dangers of taking at face value the assumption that there will be a nice offset, or perhaps something a little more generous. That might be true, but there will be many exceptions—it might be true in year one, but Lord knows whether it will be in years four, five or six.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: I think that the hon. Gentleman is trying to say that employers should be wary because the Government might increase national insurance contributions to their disadvantage. He commented earlier about the Confederation of British Industry being loyal to the Government. Surely the memories of CBI members will go back to the time of the Labour Government. Were not all sorts of burdens imposed on industry at that time? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can remind the House what the Labour Government did about national insurance contributions, let alone all those weird and wonderful things such as selective employment tax. Is not that what employers should be wary about?

Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman will have heard the almost ritual reference by the Secretary of State in the earlier part of his speech. I do not object, as it is part of the litany of political debate. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will also accept that, whatever the basis of their fear, employers are genuinely concerned about what has happened in the Bill and how it has built on the 1990 change in the law and moved so substantially towards a bail-out—or a cop-out, if one likes—by the Government.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): rose——

Mr. Dewar: Oh dear.

Mr. Newton: As the man who introduced and carried through the Statutory Sick Pay Act 1990, which I think is

the legislation to which the hon. Gentleman is referring, may I relate what happened then and has happened since to the subject that he has been seeking to develop?
In proposing and carrying through the reduction to 80 per cent. of reimbursement at that stage, I also introduced reductions in national insurance contributions, including the reduced rates for less well-paid employees. Not only have those rates stuck at the reduced level; they are exactly the same as the rates that my right hon. Friend is reducing further. By way of comparison, the Labour Government charged an employer £17·55 for an employee earning £130 per week and the figure next year will be £7·28, according to these proposals.

Mr. Dewar: Yes, I am familiar with those figures because they appear in the Conservative party brief for this debate which was so usefully given to me.

Mr. Lilley: I sent the hon. Gentleman a copy.

Mr. Dewar: What a new and high level of co-operation. I look forward to that continuing and thank the right hon. Gentleman for that courtesy.
The Leader of the House has a little room at the end of the corridor and now the right hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Lilley) rules in his place. Perhaps that colours industry's approach to possible future events.
Perhaps I am taking too long. I shall try to make my point in short order. I concede that there is genuine concern that this is the start of a process that is gathering speed, whereby there will be a substantial transfer of responsibility for what have been seen as welfare functions from Government to industry. That is also a matter for controversy in other countries. As the Secretary of State will know, a major argument is raging in Germany, where the view is that the process has perhaps gone too far and has had an unfortunate impact on the German economy.
People fear that, in the interests of what is fashionably called in Conservative party circles "shrinking" the public sector, there will be a substantial transfer of such responsibilities. I am not the only one to have that fear. When the hon. Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) was talking about the reduction from 100 per cent. to 80 per cent. in 1990 he said, rather engagingly,
I think that most hon. Members would accept that I am a trusting soul, but equally I can claim not to be daft"—
that is not a matter for debate at the moment, so I shall pass on—
and I have an awful feeling, as do the companies in the constituency that I have consulted, that the Government cannot possibly intend to increase the percentage from 80 to 90 or 95 at some point … but it is probable that the 80 per cent. will be reduced at some stage to 60 per cent."—[Official Report, 26 November, 1990; Vol. 181, c. 669.]
He was very worried about that, and that feeling of concern was reflected throughout the debate in 1990. I am not surprised that he is not attending this debate, as it would be a distressing experience for him. If he had known that the percentage would not merely decrease to 60 but go down to nil, he would have been very worried indeed.
I suggest to the Secretary of State that, once statutory sick pay has been transferred and becomes the responsibility of industry, with an offset on this occasion, we shall find that maternity pay and perhaps industrial injury benefit will follow.
Indeed, this cross-references nicely to earlier exchanges in the debate. Who has been advocating this in terms of


industrial injury benefit? The hon. Member for Havant thinks that it would be a splendid idea. When I suggested it in the Minister's ear, I saw him nodding enthusiastically.
It seems that there is concern about the matter. We are talking about £400 million in terms of maternity pay and £650 million in terms of industrial injury benefit being transferred to industry. There is genuine cause for concern. I know that the Confederation of British Industry has asked for assurances, and the Institute of Directors and the Federation of Small Businesses are worried. It is always difficult for Ministers to commit a Government, even over the next few years, but it would be extremely useful if the Minister could give us a guarantee or an assurance that this will not happen.
There is no more assiduous a critic of the social chapter than the Secretary of State. The rhetoric that is always used when we discuss the social chapter is that it will put burdens on industry that will make it uncompetitive. It would be a tragic mistake. Against that undoubtedly genuine and sincere view—I think that it is an exaggerated view—it should be easy for the Minister to say that he will have no truck with going further down that road and burdening industry with maternity pay or industrial injury benefit.

Mr. Oliver Heald: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dewar: No. I am more interested in the Minister's view than that of the hon. Gentleman. I shall listen to him in a moment.
It would not be unreasonable to expect the Minister to say that that is not his intention. After all, in a rather dramatic interview recently on the Walden show—I think that the Minister will now be known as the "not now, not never" man from this point forward—he made it clear that there would be no opting out of the basic state pension. We got the impression that it would be over his dead body.
This might be a convenient time for the Minister to confirm that, in the same way as he dislikes the social chapter and its implications, he will not make what he sees as the same mistake by dumping maternity pay, industrial injury benefit and other matters on industry. Perhaps the Minister would like to accept that challenge. In any event, we can come back to this point. I think that the Minister is sitting there with a certain stolid, professional phlegm; if I may say so, I know the feeling.

Mr. Heald: The hon. Gentleman referred to the burdens on business. Does he accept that one of the burdens of the statutory sick pay scheme is the complicated nature of the regulations and the administrative burdens that it places on large employers? One of the great benefits of the Bill is that it will remove that burden and compensate employers by cutting their national insurance contributions. Is not that good for business?

Mr. Dewar: I understand the point about the rebate. Employers' federations—in this case I can only reflect their anxieties—feel that they are still heavily burdened, and fear that they will be much more heavily burdened in the future if the present policy continues. [Interruption.] I must push on because I know that other hon. Members wish to participate in the debate.
I have fundamental reservations about the so-called off-set arrangements. For the purposes of the next part of my remarks, let us accept that it is neutral, or perhaps a

little better than neutral. When I first saw the proposition —I am sure that many of my hon. Friends made the same mistake—I thought that it was part of the major Budget strategy. I thought that it was all to do with sound money and reducing the public sector borrowing requirement. I suspect that many Tory Members thought that they were gritting their teeth, accepting pain, and battling for those admirable Tory objectives.
Of course, it has nothing to do with that at all, as we now know and as the Minister has made clear. It has nothing to do with any of the objectives. Indeed, we now have to ask why we are getting it at all. The Minister has offered an explanation—I will not pretend that he has not done so. This considerable reorganisation will enable employers to concentrate their minds on the need to tackle absenteeism and to do something about the health problems of their work force. I want to make it clear, simply to avoid doubt, that I accept that the figures in this country are not good. I entirely accept that they should be better.
I must make it clear that I do not want to endorse the Minister's somewhat cynical view that we cannot expect employers to take steps to deal with the matter unless they have a direct pecuniary interest in doing so. The Minister has a rather poor view of humanity. I suspect that he thinks that there is a lot of malingering, and there are many layabouts, behind the figures on absenteeism and ill health. I also suspect that he feels that we cannot expect leadership, control and developments in this field from employers unless we bribe them. I hope that that is not a view that we take of British management in the longer term.
I will not develop this point, but I think that there are many reasons why perhaps we have higher rates of absenteeism and higher ill-health rates in some parts of the country than in others. For example, averages are misleading. Two or three months ago, I happened to look at figures on mobility rates for men between the ages of 16 and 64. The level for the city of Glasgow is 20 per cent. above the Scottish level, and the Scottish level is much higher than that of the United Kingdom.
The view of the Greater Glasgow health board—I have to say that it is not in particularly safe hands at present in political terms—was that the figures for Glasgow could be put down to social conditions, deprivation, poverty and the long-standing factors that were highlighted by the report of the Black committee. There is a danger that, by using averages, we might be hiding the reality of the problem and possibly condoning what is effectively an additional burden on employers operating in those conditions.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: The hon. Gentleman made a long and involved point about the dubiety and uncertainty that is being introduced into the system. He felt that the Secretary of State was making a distinction between those who create the obligation to pay and those on whom the payment falls. It seems that the hon. Gentleman is arguing against himself because he is now saying that, in a specific case where the employer is being handed the obligation to pay the bill, this is a bribe. I do not see the point.

Mr. Dewar: It is not a matter of an obligation. The theory is that employers will take an interest because they will cut their outgoings by so doing. One cannot go to employers and say that it is good management practice.


One cannot go to them with the five suggestions that appeared in the Conservative Central Office brief on how to improve these matters, none of which are related to or depend on the sort of reforms which we need and which we are being asked to consider at present.
All the suggestions are simply matters of good management practice. The proposition which I am putting a caveat against is that the reforms will not happen without that financial interest. I understand that there can be a place for a financial incentive, but I think that it is overstated in this way. The argument does not hold up, for the reasons that I have explained.
I know that all these matters are on the margin to some extent, but, as my hon. Friends have said, there is a possibility that the Bill may have an unfortunate effect. Undoubtedly, there are people who through no fault of their own are absent from work because of ill health. It may be that we are providing an incentive for employers to see them as disposable before the point at which perhaps they could have claimed for unfair dismissal. We may possibly be putting a double squeeze on some very vulnerable people. I do not know the views of the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe)—I invite him to tell me. Perhaps we will get his view later.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are changing from invalidity benefit to incapacity benefit. The point is that a substantial number of people—a figure of 70,000 has been mentioned, which strikes me as rather low—who qualify for invalidity benefit under the old system will not qualify for incapacity benefit. The theory is that they will have to go out and find jobs. After this system has been introduced, if I were an employer I might look long and hard at the possibility of employing such people simply because of the financial squeeze that is being built in by the reforms. That concern was expressed by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureax in a report recently circulated to hon. Members. It is really an all-party point, because the same fear was expressed during the debates in 1990, and the NACAB material suggests that, to some extent at least, it has been borne out.
The hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) has an honourable record of taking an independent stance on such matters, and on 5 February 1991 she said:
There are bound to be people in work who, for whatever reason, need more time off because of their illnesses. There is great worry that they will be discriminated against by a company that decides that it cannot afford to take them on because they would be off work more often than an average employee."—[Official Report, 5 February 1991; Vol. 185, c. 186.]
When that view was expressed the 100 per cent. rebate was being reduced to 80 per cent. Now the rebate is coming down in one leap to nil. Arguably, the House is entitled to take account of the fact that that substantial drop may have a bad effect. I am glad that the hon. Member for Mid-Kent interrupted me, since my next analogy may appeal to him because of his social work background.
I spent five years of my life working full time with children in trouble, and I remember well a debate—it probably still lives on with the present Home Secretary —about a great move to make parents responsible for their children's criminal activities. The suggestion was that if a child got into trouble his parents must be fined in his place, to "larn them" to take more interest in their children. There was a general view that that might indeed have been

effective, but not necessarily in the right way. It would not necessarily have contributed to an improvement in the quality of family life. There seems to be a danger that the reform before us will have an impact on employers, but not necessarily the impact that the Minister expects. I do not think that he has established his case.
I have taken rather longer than I meant to, but perhaps I may briefly mention a couple of important small points. I shall simply flag them now, and perhaps during the remainder of our debates, when we get Second Reading behind us—assuming that the Government have a majority, as no doubt they will, because of the Whips—we may be able to return to some of those matters.
First, as has already been said by at least one Conservative Member, there is a genuine worry about the small firms relief. I do not say that it was the fault of the Secretary of State or of the Department, but there was a failure to realise that, instead of the six weeks during which small firms were responsible for 20 per cent., small firms would now have to pay 100 per cent. of statutory sick pay costs for four weeks. I acknowledge that there is another part to the sum—the reduction in contributions—but because between 75 per cent. and 80 per cent. of all absences are completed within the first four weeks, there will be a substantial additional burden, even on the small employer.
Many people see the change as a bad bargain. I referred earlier, with some validity, to the views of the National Farmers Union on the matter, and I was intrigued to read what that organisation says about the parliamentary process. I had not seen the letter when I spoke in the debate on the timetable motion, and it gives the House something to think about:
As in 1991 … it seems likely that the House of Lords—which cannot be bounced in the same way—will have to take on the burden of examining the legislation in detail.
It is bad for the House that the NFU should have reached that opinion. Moreover, sadly, the NFU is wrong, because small firms relief is not in the Bill at all. Again, it will be a matter for regulations, in which no change can be introduced.
I do not want to exaggerate the argument, but I put it to the Minister that there is a slight danger in saying, "If you are a small firm you get relief"—let us assume for the moment that the relief is worth something, although that is a question in itself—"so there will be an advantage in staying within the definition of a small firm, but if your national insurance bill goes above £20,000, you will lose that advantage." We would, in a strange way, be building in an employment trap, equivalent to the poverty trap with which we are so familiar in other parts of the social security system.
Today, with the assistance of the Library, I tried to test out one significant example. A firm with eight employees, assuming a salary of £250 a week per employee, would have a national insurance bill just below the £20,000 threshold. If another employee were added the bill would rise just above the £20,000, and there would be a significant financial differential in the firm's responsibility for statutory sick pay as a result. I put that fact to the Minister as another complication.
The only other matter that I wish to raise concerns the retirement age. That is an interesting question, and I make it clear that I am on the Minister's side on the subject. As the House will know, the entitlement for statutory sick pay, which used to expire at retirement age, is now knocked out


when a person reaches 65. That is part of the process of equal treatment for men and women, and I have no objection to it; indeed, I positively endorse it. However, I believe that there may be complications, with which the Secretary of State, or pehaps the Minister of State, may wish to deal in the wind-up or in one of the clause stand part debates.
As I understand it, the Minister has been forced to make the change because the derogation that enabled him to preserve the current situation on the ground that it derived directly from the retirement age system, can no longer be used, as he has now transferred the responsibility for paying statutory sick pay to the employer, so it has passed out of the public sector. I hope that the problem does not arise but, as I said to the Minister of State the other day, there could be endless litigation—I think of the Rose Graham case, litigation concerning invalidity benefit, and so on.
I hope that people will not be able to argue that, until the problem disappears in 2020—that is by no means tomorrow—some women in work will be able to draw both their pensions and statutory sick pay, whereas men will not be able to do the same beyond their retirement age. There may well be complications there. It is an interesting matter for speculation and discussion, and perhaps the Minister of State will tell us—I notice that the Minister of State is pointing straight at the Secretary of State—[Interruption.] No, he was pointing at the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, who is apparently to be allowed to trot out. In any event, the Minister who replies may tell us whether the Government have considered those legal matters.
Now I am done. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear".] I think that the verb that I used is the mot juste, because I know from the correspondence that I have received that many employers feel that they will be done, or diddled, by the change in the system, and there is nothing wrong with having fellow feeling with those whose views I am tying to represent.
The Government are making a massive extension to the system, and it has worried many hon. Members—including, I am sure, many Conservative theorists—who feel that that is not what a Conservative Government should be about. Such a transfer has potential dangers. It has brought uncertainty to industry; the Government will control what industry pays, and they are also in charge of national insurance contributions. As I have said, that is a temptation that they may not be able to resist. I believe that it would be better if they retained the responsibility in the public sector at this stage. There is an element of sleight of hand about the legislation. It opens opportunities for dishonesty by government—I use that word as a concept; I am not making a particular accusation, although possibly I could. The suggested system builds in distortions which I believe may prejudice those who are already vulnerable.
I do not believe that the advantages of the changes have in any way been established. The Government have deliberately rejected an economic case and now talk of a social case and of incentives for better practice in industry. They have laboured to try to justify what they have proposed, but they are labouring in a false cause.
The real explanation goes back to the ideology and the battles in the Department of Social Security and the Treasury over the shape and size of the public sector. The measure is attractive to them because it is seen as one that will shrink the public sector and that will privatise a benefit. It allows a manipulation of the figures to enable

those who still have a loyalty to the No Turning Back group, to the hard right and to the memories of Lady Thatcher to say that they are on the march. I do not care about them and their marching. I want legislation that has some relevance to the better government of the country and that creates better conditions under which people can live. I do not want legislation that is based on ideology and that is no more than a victory for faction over common sense. That is why I will vote against the Bill.

7 pm

Mr. Oliver Heald: I listened with great care to the comments of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). He said that there would be dangerous uncertainty in a situation in which the Minister set the minimum level for statutory sick pay and the employer had to pay. One cannot logically argue in that way, as he did, and at the same time support a statutory minimum wage, as he does, where exactly the same principles would apply. That is totally illogical.
Opposition Members repeatedly made the point, with which I also disagree, that an employer is more likely to dismiss somebody who has a poor sickness record as a result of the changes. If someone has been employed for two years and qualifies for the unfair dismissal legislation, it would not be possible for employers to dismiss out of hand for sickness without a heavy award in a tribunal.
Leading cases suggest that, to justify dismissal, there needs to be an extended absence of an employee of six months to a year or a record of 25 to 50 per cent. of non-attendance on a regular basis. To suggest that dismissal can occur willy-nilly is wrong.
For people who have been employed for less than two years, it is uneconomic for the employer to dismiss them rather than pay statutory sick pay. Four weeks' statutory sick pay is more than £200, and to pay two weeks' wages by way of notice is far more than that. It makes no economic sense, and the employer would pay a heavy price if he took that heavy-handed approach.

Mr. Tony Marlow: As has been pointed out, if the measure goes through, the employer will be liable for five times more money than at present. If someone has been employed for two years and they are lead-swingers or become so, the burden on employers will be five times what it was before. My hon. Friend said that it is not difficult to take cases to an industrial tribunal. Does not he have some concern for employers who find themselves in such a situation, because they will have to pay five times as much as before, and will be able to do nothing about it?

Mr. Heald: Conservative Members have always supported good industrial relations. [Interruption.] We have always supported the industrial relations code of practice, and any employer who breaks the law by unfair dismissal should pay the price; we should not derogate from that at all.
However, it is important to remember that a whole series of measures have been added to the contract of employment to protect the weakest in society, and statutory sick pay is one of them. At the moment, an employer can offset his national insurance contributions against statutory sick pay, and does not have to pay the full amount.
We should consider the Government's proposals in that context. They are proposing to cut the national insurance


contributions and put more of the burden of SSP on to the employer than at present. There is a neutral effect on cost, but when one considers the burdens on business of administration and regulation, one realises that the Government are proposing to free employers of 85 per cent. of the working population from them, that the measure has a good deal of Conservative sense, and that even members of the No Turning Back group could not possibly disagree. I am not a paid-up member, by the way.

Mr. Marlow: I do not think that my hon. Friend has addressed the specific point that I made. A lead-swinger who is trying to buck the system and who takes three days off every now and then because he wants to go somewhere, but is not an obvious enough case to take before an industrial tribunal, will cost the employer five times as much as before. Does not my hon. Friend have sympathy for the employer under those circumstances?

Mr. Heald: I do not agree that it will cost the employer five times as much, because, on average, a small business with five workers on £190 a week, accounting for the cut in national insurance contributions, would be £400 a year better off. One cannot complain on their behalf.

Mrs. Bridget Prentice: The situation is desperate.

Mr. Heald: The situation would certainly be desperate if the Labour party came to power.
If someone is shown to be absent from work without justification over a period, there is no reason why an employer cannot dismiss that person and it would be fair. However, Conservative Members must never say that we support poor industrial relations practice. It is important that we support the best.
I wish to make three points. First, the changes will remove a layer of unnecessary Government bureaucracy and over-regulation of business, with no effect on the costs of industry. Secondly, the changes will make employers more competitive and create jobs. Thirdly, the changes will be good for the health of employees.

Mr. John Spellar: Is that from central office?

Mr. Heald: No, these are not the words of central office. This is the real world.

Mr. Spellar: Will the hon. Gentleman describe how the changes will create jobs?

Mr. Heald: I am happy to do that. In the example that I gave a moment ago, the effect on a firm with five employees on an average wage of £190 a week who have average rates of sickness would be to reduce their costs by £400 per annum. Small businesses regularly tell the Select Committee on Employment that, if the burdens on business are reduced, more jobs will be created, because they will be more competitive and sell more goods, and the market will do its work. In my constituency, there are 1,200 small businesses in Letchworth, and I believe that they would accept that challenge whole-heartedly.
The argument is different for the large employer. The scale of the regulation of which we are talking is quite draconian. If one consults the handy guide of D. W.

Pollard's book on social welfare law, one sees the problems that large employers currently have, which will be removed.

Mr. Spellar: I cannot follow the logic. We are being told that the changes are broadly neutral financially, so industry will not save money. Therefore, using the hon. Gentleman's logic, some companies will create jobs, while other companies will lose jobs. It will not have the effect he says. The real effect may well rest on those who are applying for jobs, especially those middle-aged workers who have been made redundant and who will find it more difficult to get into work because, statistically, they will be seen as a higher risk. That is exactly what has happened in the United States.

Mr. Heald: The provision is better than neutral; it provides £162 million extra for business, in the sense that its costs will be reduced by that amount. As for the hon. Gentleman's idea that employers do not currently consider the health of the people they take on, it is not true. Every employer already asks employees about their health before taking them on—91 per cent. of workplaces have health schemes for which the insurance companies require them to do so.
It is wrong to suggest that employers will suddenly become conscious of employees' health before taking them on—they already are. However, employers will be far more aware of the health of their existing employees and of those they have taken on, because it is in their direct financial interest to improve health and lower the absentee rate.

Mr. Rowe: As we drive up the training standards on which the future of this country depends, is it not the case that the present balance, which is already in favour of an employer much preferring to keep an employee at work than allowing him to be sick—however much he is likely to be reimbursed—will swing even further in that direction? The more skilled an employee, the more costly it is for him to be away from the business.

Mr. Heald: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, with which I wholly agree. The average training cost nowadays for someone in manufacturing industry is about £25,000, so £400 for four weeks' statutory sick pay pales into insignificance.
I was about to read from D. W. Pollard's handy guide to social welfare law to give a flavour of the regulations. It states:
There will be repaid by the Secretary of State or by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue on behalf of the Secretary of State to an employer the amount, or part thereof, prescribed in D. 1560, provided that the employer has requested the Secretary of State in writing to do so and that the Secretary of State is satisfied that either:

(i) after the employer had deducted all or part of the amount he or she was entitled to deduct by virtue of D. 1556, the amount of primary and secondary Class 1 national insurance contributions he or she is required to pay is insufficient to enable him or her to deduct therefrom all or part of the amount he or she"—

Mr. Malcolm Wicks: Regulations are intriguing but, for the sake of history, will the hon. Gentleman tell the House which Government published this regulation?

Mr. Heald: Clearly, these regulations were published by this Conservative Government, but, if there is to be a


reimbursement scheme—something for which Labour Members seemed to be arguing barely a moment ago—one must have regulations of this type, because that is the only way to administer the scheme. The Government's view—rightly—is that, if the employers of 85 per cent. of the working population are taken out of the scheme, one can save a huge amount in administrative costs for the Government, the taxpayer and employers.
The hon. Member for Garscadden also appeared to think so, because, during the debate on the money resolution, he said:
It would not be unreasonable to expect a reduction in staff responsibilities, so why do we require the money resolution? After all, there will not be the substantial—I am sure that it must be substantial—administrative coming and going and expense which is at present the consequence of paying the 80 per cent. of sick pay reclaimed by the majority of employers. Clearly, that must involve a great deal of paperwork. It must involve the monitoring, processing and satisfying of claims. If all that is to be swept away, that is a big plus which presumably would result in a reduction in the administration expenses for which the Minister is responsible."—[Official Report, 14 December 1993; Vol. 234, c. 791.]
[Interruption.] I can hear the hon. Gentleman saying that I have taken his comments out of context, but it is clear that there are savings to be made, and that they could be considerable for the public purse and for large employers.
My second point is that employers need to have the lowest possible costs, so that they can compete. Large employers are for ever saying that to the Select Committee on Employment, of which I am a member, as are the Institute of Directors, and the Confederation of British Industry and various other bodies, but they cannot have it both ways. They cannot ask the Government to remove the burdens and regulations but, when the Government have done so, complain because they would like not only cuts in national insurance but not to have to bear any of the costs. The measure will therefore bring considerable benefits to large employers, and I have already dealt with small employers.
On the question of the sickness and health of the work force, there are lessons to he learned from the experience of the London boroughs which were outlined earlier. It was possible for the level of sickness and absenteeism to be reduced from 17 per cent. to 14 per cent. in a relatively short period, merely by improving management practice.
If one can introduce financial incentives, as the Bill would, one can make considerable inroads into the problem and make Britain one of the best countries in terms of absenteeism, rather than one of the worst. I am led to think that because, apart from the statistical evidence provided by the London boroughs, there is the obvious thought that, if there is money in it for the employer, the scheme is likely to work.
A woman came to my surgery recently to complain that her employer was putting pressure on her to remain off sick because he had a downturn at work and welcomed the fact that the state was paying for what amounted to a lay-off. She said that the same was true for three or four other employees in the same company near my constituency.

Mr. Spellar: Is that the upturn?

Mr. Heald: I hear the criticism.
I was lucky because it turned out that she was not one of my constituents, so I was not put in an embarrassing situation with a constituency company—the company involved was just over the border. The lesson, however, is that it may not simply be a question of someone swinging

the lead, as my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) suggested; some employers may to some extent have connived in creating a higher level of absenteeism than is strictly right.
I welcome the Bill, because it will help industry and jobs, and that is why I shall vote for Second Reading tonight.

Ms Liz Lynne: I am delighted to be called, because the debate offers me the opportunity to raise many of my fears, especially those for people with disabilities, those with long-term health problems and ex-mental health patients.
Many of the measures in the Bill will debar many such people from obtaining work. Many employers will clearly not want to employ someone who has a bad sickness record and, by the very nature of their problems, people with disabilities often have to take time off work. I stress that that is not true of all people with disabilities, because some do not need to take time off. However, others do, and I believe that they will be strongly disadvantaged.
We have been led to believe that national insurance contributions were supposed to provide money for people when they were unemployed or sick. People have been paying into the scheme for years, but they now find that they are not getting the benefits that they have paid for from the Government.

Mr. Heald: Is the hon. Lady aware that it is not a contributory scheme?

Ms Lynne: Yes, I am well aware of that. The hon. Gentleman may wish to speak later, although he has already had the opportunity to make a speech. He did not make his points very well, so I do not think that it is worth while his intervening on someone else. It is just another example of the games that Conservative Members have played in the past few days. In the Budget, the increase in national contributions was 1 per cent., and a person earning £18,000 a year will have to pay an extra £150 a year. At the same time, the Government are dismantling the advantages of the welfare state. That is despicable—[Interruption.] Conservative Members may laugh, but people in their constituencies will not be laughing quite so much.
The Government are reneging on their side of the deal. It was a swift and deadly Budget, in which unemployment benefit was reduced to six months and statutory sick pay for many has been abolished. The Government attempted to compensate for statutory sick pay by reducing employers' national insurance contributions by 0.2 per cent. for large firms and by 1 per cent. for small firms. How do the Government know how many people will be off sick? How have they calculated that? Do they have a hot line to Russell Grant, or some other astrologer? Are they employing him to tell them how many people will be off sick and for how long?
The Government are saying that the Bill will compensate people, and that the compensation will be adequate. I do not think it will be. The Government have made an assumption that the decrease in employers' national insurance contributions will offset the bill for statutory sick pay. That is ludicrous; it will not. It is not only Opposition Members who believe that, but small firms and larger companies.


For example, the Federation of Small Businesses stated that, for
well-managed companies with low sickness rates, there will be a reduction in the cost of employing people.
That is possible, but what about the people who, through no fault of their own, are employed by not so well-managed companies?

Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Lynne: No, I will get on.
People employed by not so well-managed companies will suffer; they will not receive sickness pay, or they will lose their jobs when companies can no longer afford to employ them.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer claims to be a friend of small businesses, and has said that they will benefit from the Bill. Small businesses with a national insurance contributions bill of less than £20,000 will receive state paid statutory sick pay if an employee is off work for more than four weeks. That is an inadequate measure. Many employees are certainly not off for more than four weeks, in which case the employer has to pick up the entire bill.
The owners of small businesses are extremely worried about these measures, and fear that they will cause them severe financial difficulty. For example, if a company with a work force of eight or 10 people has two workers, 25 per cent. of its work force, off sick for up to four weeks, how will it be able to afford to bring in temporary staff if it does not receive statutory sick pay? It will not, and in those circumstances it will be forced to close.
The Government say that the compensation is high enough. I have had a communication from a company called Goldwood (Moulton) Ltd., which employs 15 people. Last year, its national insurance contributions were £11,449·59; it got back £114, but it paid out £580·20. The true cost to the company will be £464·16 extra.

Mr. Lilley: How much will the company save on NI contributions—or was that included in the hon. Lady's figures?

Ms Lynne: The true cost will be £464·16. I will be pleased to let the Secretary of State see the communication after the debate, if he wishes.

Mr. Lilley: Does that take account of the reductions in national insurance contributions?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. If the hon. Lady is giving way, she should sit down. If she is not, the Secretary of State should not stand up. Is the hon. Lady giving way?

Ms Lynne: No, I have already given way once. I will give the figures to the Secretary of State after the debate, and if he cares to contact the firm, he is at liberty to do so. It will tell him far better than I of the problems that small businesses up and down the country are facing.

Mr. Richard Spring: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Lynne: No, I will not give way. I am fed up with Conservative Members trying to score party political points, as they did last night when they disrupted the

business of the House and prevented many hon. Members from taking part in the Consolidated Fund Bill debate. I am not prepared to give way to Conservative Members.
Big businesses have also voiced concerns. IBM is looking into the measures, and has said:
We will suffer more from a decision to stop reimbursing sick pay than we will benefit from the reduction in national insurance contributions.
It fears that it will have to cut back on perks such as generous occupational pensions.
If IBM, one of the best run and economically sound companies, is contemplating such moves, even with its 0·2 per cent. reduction, the mind boggles about what other companies will do to cope. They are already reeling from the recession that has been caused by this Government's policies.
The Bill will have a prejudicial effect on the work force and society. Many employers are bound to ask about the sickness records of people looking for work, and about how much time they have had off work. If they have had too much time off work, they will not be employed. These measures will have a devastating effect on people with disabilities. Already, 40 per cent. of disabled people are out of work, and the Bill will ensure that that figure will increase.
This is no way to run an economy. In addition to wasting the talents of many thousands of people, the Bill will increase the social security bill by putting people out of work and making them dependent on the state. The Bill is not a radical attempt to reform the welfare state; it is intended to dig the Government out of the PSBR hole that they have dug for themselves.

Dr. Robert Spink: I welcome clause 1, because it encourages British industry and commerce to become more effective, improve unit labour costs and become more competitive. The Bill is cost-neutral, as was its predecessor, the Statutory Sickness Payment Act 1991, and contains broadly compensating reductions in employers' national insurance contributions.
The most significant financial impact of the Bill will be to encourage employers and employees alike to reduce sickness absence and improve working conditions. That will reduce the direct cost of absenteeism, and, more significantly, reduce the indirect costs of sickness absence.
Let me explain that for the benefit of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). Hon. Members who know British industry will understand that the negative impact of sickness absence is not only lost productivity and the cost of sickness pay for the absent worker. Of equal, or even greater, importance is the disruptive impact on the balanced production line, on delayed and duplicated administrative work, and the learning curve effects.
The disruption impact—the secondary impact on efficiency—is of great financial consequence, greater even than the direct cost of sickness absenteeism. Unlike other forms of absenteeism, sickness absence cannot be planned. Its impact affects the whole organisation, inhibiting the effective achievement of the organisation's objectives, whatever they may be, and drives up the costs to the organisation out of all proportion to the direct costs of the statutory sick pay.
The latest sickness absence statistics are very telling. According to the labour force survey on absenteeism, 170


million working days are lost each year to the United Kingdom economy as a whole: that represents 3·8 per cent. of total working time, and an average of eight days per employee per year. As we have already heard, the duration of sickness absence is typically very low; some 40 per cent. of absentees are absent for fewer than four days.
Internationally, we perform very badly: we have the second highest absenteeism rate in the European Community. I had thought that we were under-performed only by the Netherlands. Our rate of sickness absence is about half as high again as that of the United States of America. That is not acceptable; it is draining our competitiveness, and acting as a permanent leech on our economy. It is therefore right and proper for the Government to make a change that will focus employers and employees on the need to reduce unnecessary sickness.
The CBI states:
incentives to reduce the costs of sickness absence are not necessary in the private sector where lost productivity provides sufficient incentive.
Members of the CBI are reverists if they really believe that there is no room for improvement in sickness absence rates.

Ms Angela Eagle: Did the hon. Gentleman read what the CBI said about the Bill in The Independent on Sunday:
It would impose costs on the employers which would be partly hidden and would damage competitiveness"?

Dr. Spink: According to a briefing that I received from the CBI today, it supports the Bill. I shall make that material available to the hon. Lady immediately after my speech. The CBI cannot really believe that there is no unnecessary sickness absence in this country; it knows there is.
There are interesting differences in sickness absence in the United Kingdom economy, which serve to highlight the fact that a good proportion of such absence is indeed unnecessary. For instance, in small companies—where management have a closer and much clearer understanding of employees, where the money often comes straight out of the manager's back pocket and where loyalty is strongest—sickness absence is much lower than in larger organisations.
In Japanese companies operating in the United Kingdom, sickness absence is running at about half the average. It is notably lower in the private sector than in the public sector— hon. Members will know the story of the public-sector employee who asked his colleague whether he had managed to save any of his sick leave for Christmas shopping this year. The CBI and Industrial Society surveys do not, however, have large enough sample sizes to distinguish reliably between regions and industries.
It will be clear to all hon. Members that, in bringing pressure to bear on the problem of sickness absence, the Government will drive up competitiveness. Let me point out to the hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar)—although, unfortunately, he is no longer in the Chamber—that that pressure will improve employment, reducing the burden on the taxpayer and the size of the bureaucracy.
I see nothing wrong in that; I consider it a great benefit. The moribund nanny state will be pushed further back: I welcome that development, and will ask the Government to go further along the same line. I see the Bill as an element of the virtuous circle that will yield benefits to everyone, and I am delighted to support the Government.

Ms Eagle: In its parliamentary brief, the CBI says that it does not want the Government to go any further. It appears that the hon. Gentleman agrees with one part of what it has said, but not with the other, more crucial, part.

Dr. Spink: The hon. Lady is being very selective. The CBI says that, "in accepting the proposals", it seeks three assurances. I shall deal with those assurances shortly, but it is clear that the CBI accepts the Government's proposals.

Mr. Spring: This is an important point. In its briefing, the CBI says:
In the context of the overall Budget package"—
which was enormously welcomed by the CBI—
and the reassurance provided by the welcome proposals to reduce NI contributions to offset the cost of transferring SSP, the CBI does not wish to oppose the SSP Bill.
It could not be put more plainly.

Dr. Spink: I am indebted to my hon. Friend for that clarification.

Mr. Peter Mandelson: In all fairness, the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring) did not do the House the service that he might have done had he read the entire paragraph. The CBI goes on to say:
there are real concerns that some employers will not he adequately compensated, for example those in construction or heavy engineering, who face higher absence rates for reasons beyond their control. It may also hurt the small employers with around 20 employees disproportionately".
The entire brief should be read in context, not just selective extracts.

Dr. Spink: I agree with one implication of that statement. The construction industry, along with a number of others, needs to examine its working conditions and its safety record very carefully. They are appalling: there are far too many fatalities in our construction industry. Perhaps the Government's move will draw attention to that, and focus employers' minds on improving working conditions.
Of course we must all welcome any move that reduces bureaucracy, as the Bill does. It will greatly simplify the administration of the statutory sick pay system. Only a small business man—or, indeed, a large business man, or rather, a business man in a large organisation —who has had to grapple with the complexity of SSP would fully appreciate the importance of that point. Indeed, a third of small businesses do not even bother to use the system, because it is so complicated.
The CBI says that the measure will increase non-wage labour costs. However, if it works well—as I expect it to —it will reduce overall non-wage labour costs, thus reducing unit labour costs, making us more competitive and helping us around the virtuous circle that the Government are trying to pursue. I am sure that, on reflection, the CBI will accept that.
I agree with the CBI on one key point. It seeks an assurance that
there will be a radical overhaul of the present complex and burdensome administrative procedures for the SSP scheme. The present Bill only relieves employers of the burden of claiming compensation!
I trust that the Government will give that firm assurance; I also hope that they will give careful consideration to what the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) said about the potential impact on disabled employees.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: The speech of the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) underlined the problem that the Government have caused by rushing into the legislation. He gave one reason for his belief that the Bill would encourage employers to improve the health of their employees, thus reducing the sick pay bill; his hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald), however, could cite a clear case of an employer's suggesting that, because production was not as good as it should have been, employees should take more time off work in view of the sick-pay subsidy that enabled employers to pay their workers. Two very different reasons were given. The Opposition would welcome genuine measures by employers to improve the health of workers, but I do not believe that that is the purpose of the Bill.

Mr. Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the point that I was making—at the moment, there is a possibility of fraud occurring of the kind that I was outlining, and this measure will stop that? Does he not agree that Opposition Members, as well as Conservative Members, want to stamp out fraud of that kind so that taxpayers' money is properly spent?

Mr. Pike: We, too, welcome the stamping out of fraud, but I bet that the employer that the hon. Gentleman was speaking about was a Tory voter and was looking at ways that he could abuse the system—tax evasion and the rest. The Opposition do not want to see the system abused. We share with that objective in mind. I do not believe that that is the principal objective of the Bill.
I believe that we must look seriously at the implications of what is going to happen. I have no doubt—my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) made the point, as did other hon. Friends—that the Bill encourages the employer not to employ people seeking employment who are older or perhaps have health problems. Therefore, those people will become permanently unemployable. Employers will be given a licence to get rid of workers who have an above-average record of quite genuine sickness. Many people quite rightly interpret the Bill and the Budget proposals that relate to it as a charter to sack the sick.

Mr. Rowe: The hon. Gentleman must admit that probably one of the most distressing features of the present employment market is the extraordinary difficulty that people over 50 have in even getting seen for jobs, and the Bill would not make any difference to that. What is required is a real understanding among employers that people over 50—or even over 45 these days —are more likely to have a good employment record and are more likely to turn their backs on minor illnesses. If anything, the Bill will highlight the present totally disgraceful situation and not affect the market in the way that he claims.

Mr. Pike: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I have no doubt that there is a bar to people above the age of 50 and that many conscientious workers who should be considered for employment at the present time are barred. I believe that the proposal will extend the number of people aged 40 and over who will not be considered for employment because of their sickness record. Although I have some sympathy with part of his contention, I certainly would not go the whole way with what he was saying.
I want now to deal with the 0·2 per cent. reduction in national insurance contributions, which has the same effect as all general reductions on a one-off basis; some employers will gain and some will lose. I must say to the Minister, and to the Secretary of State who is not with us at the moment, that they should give consideration to employers who employ a large percentage of their workers in types of jobs which, by their nature, are prone to creating sickness.
My hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden referred to construction workers, but, as he will know, many industries equate to that one example. People who work outside—people working on the roads, and in many other jobs—are at high risk of having health problems and are more likely to have time off work. Some people work shifts. Shift work creates conditions for health problems. There are a number of situations that need to be taken into account.
I believe that the generalisation of the 0·2 per cent. reduction will penalise some employers. The Secretary of State should consider that position carefully. If the Bill is forced through, it will have unfortunate effects for some employers.
The Secretary of State referred to the situation in Germany and Holland. In some way, he was referring to the situation with regard to employers. If I understood him correctly, he was saying that the workers got a much better deal in Holland and Germany than they do in the United Kingdom. I make no apology for saying that I believe that the Government always fail to take into account the needs of workers. That is why they are opposed to the social chapter and a national minimum wage and why they abolished the wage councils. We must ensure that the right to sick pay is protected.
I want the Minister to look at how we can ensure that when the employer has to meet 100 per cent., bad employers will not try to evade it. I know that these things are covered by previous legislation, but there is a growing trend of employers trying to get away with such things. Unfortunately, many employers fail to recognise trade unions. Many workers dare not complain and will not get the sick pay to which they are entitled.
I want the Minister to assure us about what steps workers can take if they feel that they are not getting their entitlement to statutory pay. The Secretary of State underlined the fact that it is statutory sick pay, and, therefore, I hope that the Minister will accept that, if an employer dodges that responsibility, there is some statutory responsibility on his Department to ensure that that payment is made.

Mr. Hargreaves: I have some sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman has been saying, as I have been part of a large organisation and have had various connections with small organisations, particularly clubs. I ask him to consider that there appear with this measure to be two angles: the first is the medium and large company and the employees thereof; the second is the growing number of much smaller companies which, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary rightly said, find the form filling so horrendous that they dispense with the system altogether. To be honest, they are being very good employers in that they continue paying irrespective and are not reimbursed for it.

Mr. Pike: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, but, on the point that I am making, I seek assurance from the Minister that his Department will give assistance to people if they do not get the statutory sick pay, to which they are entitled. Now that the employer will have to pay 100 per cent., I think that we may see a greater evasion of the legal responsibility by the bad employer. However, we must accept that there are good employers as well as some bad employers.
Finally, I shall refer to the rating. Again, the point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden. The Secretary of State said that he would use wise judgment in that situation. I hope that we get some assurance from the Minister who is winding up that although statutory sick pay does not have to be increased by the rate of inflation, or any other factor, we will not see it effectively frozen.
I accept that we are moving up from the lower to the higher rate. However, let us not hide from the fact that there will be a problem if that higher rate is not uprated in the years to come. I hope that the Minister will assure us that the Government have no intention of allowing the real value of statutory sick pay to be eroded even though they are shifting responsibility to the employer.
The Government must accept that they have a responsibility, particularly for those workers who depend on statutory sick pay and who do not receive sick pay from their employers. Those people depend on that money and its value must not be allowed to fall in real terms. I hope that the Government recognise that they have a genuine responsibility. It is always said that we have reasonable Secretaries of State, but we all have different views about what is reasonable and about wisdom. I hope that the Government will assure us that they intend the value of SSP to be maintained in the years ahead.

Mr. Richard Spring: I am aware of the problems of absenteeism, as I have run a business. On a national scale, up to £13 billion a year is lost to British industry in terms of additional costs as a result of absenteeism. That is a truly enormous and frightening figure.
I have also conducted business in the Netherlands. Absenteeism is a particularly endemic problem in that country and it has provoked considerable national discussion there. Happily, we are not as badly off as they are in the Netherlands, although the record in the United Kingdom is not particularly good. On average, we lose eight days a year through sickness.
Smaller companies are easier to manage from a personnel point of view. The level of absenteeism is twice as high in larger companies as in smaller companies. That is indicative of the scale of the problem.

Mr. Rowe: Is my hon. Friend aware of recent research which shows that a surprising number of employees of a whole variety of ages—not just the older employees—would, if given the opportunity, trade hours for pay? In other words, some of them would be prepared to work fewer hours a week if their employers gave them that opportunity. Does my hon. Friend accept that that may be a contributory cause to absenteeism and sickness? Does not that provide a window of opportunity to get people into work and off the unemployment queue?

Mr. Spring: My hon. Friend has made a very important point. Flexibility in the way in which we operate our employment market is important. Flexibility is one of the reasons why we have been so successful as a nation at reducing unemployment in comparison with other countries in the European Union. I value the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe).
When considering management, we must ask why Japanese companies operating in the United Kingdom are so successful at raising productivity levels and reducing absenteeism. Their productivity is reflected in lack of absenteeism. They have 2·3 per cent. absenteeism, as opposed to the national average of more than 4 per cent. That has not come about as a result of coercion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) referred to the Audit Commission study of London boroughs which was undertaken in 1990. The Audit Commission enunciated five principles based on good management practice which included appropriate information, suitably trained managers, attention to staff welfare, clear responsibilities and commitment by senior management.
Absenteeism was running at two and a half times the national norm. However, as a result of the Audit Commission study, there has been a substantial decline in absenteeism as a result of the actions of management. That is an important part of the equation and it is an important element in the philosophy behind the Bill. Management should take responsibility for their employees, including for sickness and days off through absenteeism.
Motivation to make people a part of a team and an enterprise and to feel that they want to be at work and not absent is a clear objective of all good management. It has also been said that 90 per cent. of employees in this country are covered by occupational pension schemes for short-term sickness. Therefore, employers have a significant role to play.
Several hon. Members referred to the difficulties facing small businesses. I fully understand that point. The Federation of Small Businesses has been critical of the Bill. However, it is only fair to say that the federation and the Confederation of British Industry must consider the issue within the overall context of the Budget. After all, the Bill is a budgetary measure. The federation and the CBI both welcomed the Budget for the exceptional help it has provided for small businesses. I am a vice-chairman of the Small Business Bureau which is very much in touch with, and sympathetic to, small businesses.
It is important to make the point that the Budget offers help with cash flow. There has been a dramatic cut in interest rates over the past year. We have also seen an extension of the loan guarantee scheme and the rollover of capital gains reliefs. In addition the Government are rightly considering the question of prompt payment. Small businesses have been greatly encouraged by that. If they are critical of the Bill, they must consider it within the context of the enormous help that the Government have given the small business sector, which it has accepted unanimously, as a result of the Budget.
It goes without saying that individual employers will depend, with regard to absenteeism, on particular levels of pay and sickness. I want to consider the specific point of small businesses and the challenges that they face in the context of the Bill. We must consider whether this is a cost-saving exercise for the Government.


The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) referred to a transfer away from welfare spending. However, a misleading impression has been created that the cost of not reimbursing 80 per cent. of SSP is about £675 million in 1994–95 and £720 million in 1995–96. However, the cut in employers' national insurance contributions is worth £830 million. That is much greater than the change in SSP. It is a saving of £160 million to businesses.
Let us consider the example of a medium-sized company employing staff who earn an average of about £170 a week. It will save £88 a year on national insurance for each employee. If the firm experienced average levels of sickness, it would forgo reimbursement of SSP over the next year of about £44 per employee. That is a gain per employee of £44 a year.

Ms Eagle: Will the hon. Gentleman admit that he is reading directly from the central office brief? Given the information that it provided during the last general election, why should we believe anything in the central office brief?

Mr. Spring: The hon. Lady has made a point on which it is worth reflecting. With regard to what the electorate believe, we know what the electorate did in the last general election and what they will certainly do in the next one. The fact is that reductions in NICs outweigh the higher cost of SSP and improvements in maternity pay which may come about through the EC pregnant workers directive.
I want now to consider specifically the small business situation. At present, any employer whose NIC liability is £16,000 or less—with, say, 10 or fewer employees— can recover 100 per cent. of SSP paid to an employee after the first six weeks of sickness. In effect, that means that raising the threshold to £20,000 is way ahead of inflation. Also, the reimbursement period is cut from six weeks to four weeks.
Two thirds of employees—about 750,000—will be helped. That is an increase of 50,000 employees. All small firms with average levels of sickness will benefit overall. To sum up, there will be 100 per cent. reimbursement for small companies with average sickness rates and where absences are in excess of four weeks.
I particularly wish to comment on what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said about the establishment of the working group which includes Department of Social Security officials, employers and employers' organisations to remove or ease the administrative burdens of the SSP. Its review will be completed in April 1994, as part of the Government's resolute determination to reduce red tape and bureaucracy wherever it is found.
At the heart of the matter is the question: can companies be encouraged to manage absenteeism and sickness better? In the Financial Times of 8 December, Angela Baron, a policy adviser at the Institute of Personnel Management, said:
The experience of companies that have started monitoring sickness absence is that the very fact that they have started paying attention to it is enough to reduce the absence rates in their companies.
That is an extremely important point. In practice, most big companies top up statutory sick pay in different ways.

Some companies have introduced a number of measures and bonus schemes to attempt to reduce absenteeism further.
Iveco Ford in Slough did that. Its absence level of 7 per cent. is now down to 2·8 per cent. In 1986, Vauxhall had sickness absenteeism of 8·8 per cent. Today it is down to 4·5 per cent. That was after the company introduced a negotiated incentive scheme which saved employees £4 a week in contributions to the company's sick pay scheme if average levels of sick pay could be kept below 5 per cent. Rover, a great jewel in the manufacturing crown of this country, introduced a return-to-work interview scheme for staff who were frequently off, and it cut absenteeism by no less than half in the past three years.
Those are practical examples of successful management of absenteeism, and they have had an enormous impact on reducing costs to companies. After all, such companies provide employment in this country, and that is partly why companies such as Rover are doing so well capturing markets and are able to provide yet more employment, compared with other companies in Europe.
Can a change in statutory sick pay have even more dramatic effects? There is an extremely interesting example in Sweden. Opposition Members used frequently to cite Sweden as a great example of a model social welfare state. One has only to look at the implosion of the Swedish economy, its rapidly rising unemployment, and the collapse of national morale to see that the social welfare state grew so fast that it literally grew out of control.
Earlier this year, Sweden reformed its sick pay arrangements. For the first time, the payment for an employee for the first two weeks off work had to be borne by the employer. A curious thing happened early in November. The flu vaccine in Sweden ran out, not because of a flu epidemic but because employers saw the wisdom of taking preventative action in the face of a possible epidemic. Swedish companies have taken those steps to try to keep down sick pay costs. No doubt Sweden's soaring unemployment has much to do with that and has played its part, but, in three years, absenteeism has fallen in that country, from three out of 10 workers being on sick pay at any given time to fewer than one in 10 today. That is a remarkable success story of good management which has led to advantageous results for the Swedish economy.
The motivation of people to make the best of their jobs is at the heart of any business enterprise. Of course, motivation is more likely to be in the private sector than in the public sector. It is worth noting that, on average, sickness absence rates are a quarter higher in the public sector than in the private sector.
I particularly welcome the abolition, in April 1995, of the lower rate of SSP. That will be worth £3·70 a week to the lower paid. That harmonisation will remove the time-consuming exercise of establishing whether an employee's average weekly earnings entitle him to the lower or the standard rate of SSP. There will be only one rate, and that will further reduce bureaucracy and administrative burdens. Administration will be cheaper and the system will be easier to understand. Of course, lower-paid employees are less likely to be covered by occupational schemes.
The Bill gives employers an incentive to improve further the health of their staff, while protecting smaller businesses more generously. I very much welcome the Bill.

Mrs. Bridget Prentice: I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) on his use of the word "reverist". It will entitle him to some toys for children in his constituency. I hope that, if I use the word "victrix" in the same way, I will be able to join him in that—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Lady was probably not present when Madam Speaker expressed her views about that matter. She was not very happy about such practices in the Chamber. If the hon. Lady would refrain from making such comments, I would be more than grateful.

Mrs. Prentice: I accept what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Unfortunately, I was not present when Madam Speaker made that comment.
The hon. Members for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring) and for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) seemed to advocate movement towards a 35-hour week. I was most impressed that Conservative Members were beginning to think that such flexibility in working arrangements might be considered. However, the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds implied that nurses, for example, seem to be less well motivated than car workers. He implied that people doing such public service jobs are more likely to be absent, deliberately miss work and generally have no incentive to do the quality of work that we know that they do.
Statutory sick pay is not a giveaway—it is not easily obtained. It is a benefit to be received only if a person is sick or disabled and is unable to work as a result. We obtained the impression from Conservative Members that it is a skivers charter. We also know that people on poverty wages do not even qualify for it.
I should like to think that society is at a stage at which we should be working with employers and employees to enhance the world of work rather than to denigrate it, and that we should not make matters more difficult for employers but give them more help and opportunities to expand their work forces. The essence of the Bill contradicts what the Government say is their policy for business and employers. Indeed, they freely admit that it will cost employers at least £100 million. We have figures to suggest that it will be considerably more than that.
The Confederation of British Industry thinks that the measure is a fundamental breach of the partnership agreement between the state and employers delivering a vital social security benefit. That is what statutory sick pay is about. There is a responsibility on the Government, in favour of the citizens of this country, that they ensure that proper statutory sick pay is available to all. The Bill is really about the Government reneging on that policy and on their responsibility to govern and protect communities and individuals, and to act in a responsible and civilised manner.

Mr. Spring: Is the hon. Lady suggesting that the CBI is opposed overall to the Bill?

Mrs. Prentice: The hon. Gentleman will know that we have disputed the position that the Government have taken with regard to the CBI, which is not at all happy with the Bill. The so-called support from the CBI which we heard about from Government Members is a contorted view of what the CBI believes.
The Secretary of State said in his opening remarks that there was no evidence that the Statutory Sick Pay Act 1991 —and, he implied, this Bill—involved discrimination against people who may be off work through illness. I do not know why the Secretary of State has come to that conclusion. At least he does not go as far as the brief from central office, which says that evidence shows that the Labour party got it wrong when in 1991 we predicted increased discrimination.
Let me tell hon. Members that citizens advice bureaux totally and absolutely refute the Secretary of State's position. They are extremely concerned that employers will dismiss sick people as a result of the Bill. We know already of many employees who do not receive the full amount of statutory sick pay, and some who do not receive any at all. The CAB gives examples, such as a client in the west midlands who said that his employer's policy is to issue written warnings for certified absence during sickness. In Avon, a client on sick leave was paid less than the full amount and was told by her supervisor after six weeks off sick that she was to be made redundant and that someone was already doing her job. The CAB provides several other examples.
If the Secretary of State believes that people are not discriminated against as result of being ill, he is not in the world of reality and he does not know what life is really like for employees.
The Government also say that they want to increase occupational sick pay schemes, yet both the CBI and the Federation of Small Businesses believe that the abolition of reimbursement will limit the ability of employers to provide occupational sick pay schemes. There, yet again, is a contradiction of the Government's policy.
The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) talked about the removal of the administrative burden. The Federation of Small Businesses seems to think something quite different. Its says that, despite the fact that the transfer of sick pay will take place, the administrative record-keeping will still have to go on. Firms must still provide sickness records, and all of the paperwork which is attached to them. They will still be expected to deal with self-certification notes, waiting days, periods of incapacity for work calculations and so on. Firms will still be subject also to Department of Social Security inspections. The federation believes that the administrative burden will not be reduced as a result of the Bill.

Mr. Heald: The point that I was making was that the complete removal of the administrative burden for large employers will be of great benefit to them. I accept entirely that, as far as small businesses are concerned, that has not been removed.
I hope that the review body will be able to cut that administrative burden further. The hon. Lady should not think that I said that small businesses would be better off in that particular way—I did not.

Mrs. Prentice: The hon. Gentleman may have attempted to clarify his speech which was delivered in a fog earlier in the evening. He lives in hope that the review body might do something about it. He should recognise, as others have, that every time the Government set up such a review body, our hopes do not triumph over experience. We do not expect a considerable improvement as a result of the review body.


The Conservative party believes itself to be the party of businesses, big and small. Tonight, through the Bill, it has reneged on its commitments to both. It has reneged on its commitments to reimburse employers, as it had promised in previous years. It has reneged on its commitment to support small businesses, because those businesses will tell anyone that the five week period is of little use to them, because most of their work force would have returned to work in a shorter period. It has reneged on its commitment to remove the burden from business.
The Conservative party cannot even get the business organisations to give their whole-hearted support to the Bill. Those of us who believe in a partnership between Government, employers and employees can do no better than to thoroughly oppose the Bill.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: I am sorry that I missed part of the speech by the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice), because I was out of the Chamber making inquiries. I declare an interest as I am a small employer. I may declare a further interest of a different sort in that I was fortunate to be winner of the Helping Hands award last year from the Federation of Small Businesses.
While I was out of the Chamber, I took the opportunity to check on what was said during the debate on 28 November 1990, when the House debated the Statutory Sick Pay Bill. I noticed that I welcomed the Bill then, and I said that I thought that the interests of small firms should be considered. I shall quote a sentence which I picked out:
I support the Bill as whole, but I should like to be assured that there will be full consultation before there are any more changes. Those consultations should be with representatives of smaller firms and with industries that are affected by the Bill." —[Official Report, 28 November 1990; Vol. 181, c. 893.]
Of course the Bill went to the other place, where amendments were made, including the removal of what was known as the "Henry VIII clause". The amendment which helps small businesses was introduced in the other place.
I notice that the briefing that has been issued by the Federation of Small Businesses does not entirely welcome the Bill. However, I wonder whether it has picked up on all of the points that the Government have introduced. It seems that the Government have paid particular attention this time to the interests of small firms. In reading the brief from the federation, it seems that it has not picked up the extent to which small firms will benefit from the change from six weeks to four weeks during which employers are liable before they get full compensation.
The Government have paid attention to the needs of small firms. That was the issue the last time we debated it, and it is still the issue now, although we have gone all the way to 100 per cent. payments by employers. The Government have made the right decision, although it may not be immediately welcome by all employers. The Government have, in effect, decentralised decision-making so that the amount of money provided by the Treasury can be allocated to those who need to draw sick pay benefit through the medium of employers. Those employers are able to make a much better judgment than anyone in the Government will ever be able to as to what the circumstances of each case are. Reducing national

insurance contributions by 0·2 per cent. will amount to very nearly £1 billion which the Government have ensured will not burden employers.
While listening to the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), I had difficulty in understanding what the Opposition are opposing. It almost seemed as if the hon. Gentleman was trying to argue the case for the employers, which seemed to come strangely from a party which imposed a jobs tax when it was last in power. The rate of national insurance contributions was 13·5 per cent. when the Labour party was last in power. Was not that the best part of a jobs tax?
It seems strange that the Labour party should now try to argue that it is looking at the situation from the point of view of industry. When it was in power, the Labour party did its utmost to tax jobs out of existence. I still have the greatest difficulty in understanding why the Opposition are opposing the Bill, and I have heard no argument from Opposition Members which would explain. It is just a knee-jerk reaction—as the Government are doing what is perfectly sensible, the Opposition will oppose it for whatever reason. I do not know whether we will hear any arguments from the Opposition which will stand up. I have not heard anything from Opposition Members worthy of interest. The most interesting points were made by Conservative Members.
My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, North-West (Sir M. Grylls) spoke about the importance of reducing the administrative burden on firms. The Bill will make a small contribution to that by relieving employers of having to go through the process of reclaiming the 80 per cent. However, employers still have a great deal of record keeping.
The fact that benefit is available for 28 weeks and is paid straight into an employee's bank account makes it easier for the payments to continue. When the Labour party was in power, it was much more difficult as people had to go to the benefit office to get their sick pay. The arrangements are now easier which may make it difficult for employers to judge the circumstances of an absent employee.
When we debated the issue previously, I spoke about the construction industry. I do know know whether my right hon. Friend will be able to say whether there has been any consultation with that industry.
The Electrical Contractors Association is concerned that employers will be more likely to take on 714s—the self-employed—because the traditional role of the Electrical Contractors Association as a self-regulatory body will be destroyed if more and more people become self-employed.
There is concern among the ECA and other construction industries that the Government's measures may lead to more people becoming self-employed. It would be nice to be reassured that the Government have considered that point of view and will consult fully with representatives from smaller firms. There may be an opportunity to participate later in the debate, but that is all I want to say now.

Mr. Adam Ingram: This has been an interesting debate that is worth setting in its historical context. I hope that it will be recognised that it is no exaggeration to say that what Lloyd George started on 4


May 1911 when he moved the National Insurance Bill was ended on 30 November 1993 by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
We are debating the effective end to state participation in a social welfar benefit pioneered and brought into law by the National Insurance Act 1911. In its historical context, that Bill was the most important involvement by the state in social health care until the creation of the national health service in 1948 under a Labour Government. If the measure goes through tonight, as it undoubtedly will, it will be confining 82 years of state welfare provision to the dustbin of history.
That is all part of the Government's programme to dismantle the welfare state. It is the beginning, not the end, of a process and I hope that, as Conservative Members troop through the Lobby, they are aware of what they are doing. To use an old Scottish saying, "If ye didnae ken before, ye ken noo."
I turn to the more current historical antecedents of the Bill. When the Statutory Sick Pay Bill passed through the House in November 1990, hon. Members on both sides expressed fears that the reduction in reimbursement from 100 per cent. to 80 per cent. would be the thin end of the wedge—the beginning of a steady decline in the Government's contribution to national sick pay costs. It was one of those all too familiar phrases. The Secretary of State of the time assured the House that the Conservative Government had no plans to make further changes. We have become accustomed to such assurances. At the last election, the Prime Minister told the electorate that there were no plans to increase the scope of VAT or national insurance contributions. We know what has happened to those promises—even if they were made, in the immortal words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on a wet night in Dudley.
The Labour party and the country at large now know that, when Ministers say that they have no plans to do something, they mean exactly the opposite. We have learnt to read between the lines. [Interruption.] Read my lips, as one of my hon. Friends said from a sedentary position.
There is a certain uniqueness about the debate. I cannot recollect a time when every major business organisation has universally condemned a Government measure. The views of industry are remarkably consistent—that is, consistently opposed.
Peter Morgan of the Institute of Directors—not an organisation which Labour Members would normally call in aid—described it as
imposing a heavy compliance burden on employers".
The CBI has been quoted earlier in the debate. It said that
as a matter of principle
it opposed
loading these costs onto employers".
The Federation of Small Businesses called it a
Bill which will prove damaging to many small businesses and their employees".
It also accused the Government of having
reneged on their earlier commitments regarding statutory sick pay".
The Forum of Private Business—another organisation which it is unusual for Labour Members to quote in support of their arguments—has lambasted the Bill by saying:
The current proposals, if implemented, are likely to become the principal cause of a significant number of insolvencies".
In recent months we have heard much from Conservative Members about the placing of extra burdens on employers in the midst of the currrent recession. They

are really saying that they are against anything which adds to the welfare of the working community. By voting for the measure tonight they are saying that they are in favour of those on-costs which undermine employee welfare.
There is no disputing the extra costs being imposed on industry. They have been accepted as £695 million next year and £750 million the year after. Those costs pose the threat of company closures and further job losses. It is a strange and perverse way to assist companies trying to fight their way out of a Government-created recession. We know that large companies will suffer as they have to meet the full costs of all their sick pay provision. We were led to believe that the Secretary of State had spared struggling small companies from a similar fate.
In his statement to the House, the Secretary of State said:
I propose to abolish reimbursement, except to small employers".
He went on to say that he intended to
increase the help to small employers".—[Official Report, 1 December 1993; Vol. 233, c. 1038.]
Those were disingenuous words.
Under the old rules small employers had to meet just 20 per cent. of the costs of statutory sick pay for the first weeks; they will now have to meet 100 per cent. of the costs for the first four weeks. Last night the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) muttered in a loud voice, "Is that true?" When it was pointed out that it was true, he buried his head in a copy of Hansard and rapidly left the Chamber. That it is why he is not here tonight.
When the Secretary of State was presenting the measures to the House, he conveniently ignored the fact that the introduction of full reimbursement to small employers would be of little assistance in more than 70 per cent. of the cases as the vast majority of employees are fit to return to work well within four weeks. If the Secretary of State has any doubts about that, let me draw attention to the words of his predecessor:
The average spell of sickness is probably about three weeks".—[Official Report, 29 November 1990; Vol. 181, c. 639.]
The extension of small employers' relief will apply to fewer than a quarter of the cases where sickness benefit is payable. As a direct consequence, all business will suffer.
The Forum of Private Business was perfectly correct to describe small business relief as "fundamentally flawed". The Bill will exacerbate already difficult cash flow problems.
As the Federation of Small Businesses points out,
'The compensating national insurance contribution reduction to employers will only give a nominal weekly or monthly rebate whereas a high incidence of sick leave must be paid in the week or month in which it occurs.
As I said, small businesses will be acutely affected. For them, a short period of illness among two or three staff will have a proportionately greater impact on costs. A small firm with 10 employees could easily have to manage without 20 per cent. to 30 per cent. of its staff as a result of a flu epidemic. As most of them may return to work before the four-week cut-off point, the small company would bear all the costs. It is unlikely that a company of 1,000 employees would suffer an equivalent percentage of staff being absent through sickness at any one time.
Ministers may continue to stress the compensatory reduction in national insurance reductions —but if they claim that the direct financial cost to businesses will be almost totally offset by corresponding cuts in employer


NICs, what is the point of the Bill? The claim that businesses need the incentive of cutting sick pay entitlement is entirely without foundation. The CBI states:
Incentives to reduce the cost of sickness absence are not necessary in the private sector, where lost productivity provides sufficient incentive.
The CBI is saying that the legislation will have an effect that industry does not want. The CBI also sought assurances that the Bill is not simply the first step on the road of shifting the burden of legislated social costs on to employers.
Bearing in mind the broken promises of previous Secretaries of State, I repeat the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). Will the Minister guarantee that he will not transfer in future the cost of statutory maternity pay or industrial injury benefits to employers? When my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden asked those questions, there was no response, so I ask them again.
Ministers have achieved a double whammy of pitfalls, with the Bill creating both an employment trap and a business expansion trap. The £20,000 national insurance contribution all-or-nothing threshold will discourage entrepreneurs from expanding business capacity and taking on more employees. The last thing that business needs at present are further disincentives to increase employment. The Bill's effect on employment prospects is clear.
The greatest impact of this mean-minded Bill will be on those already facing discrimination in the labour market. Instead of legislating to help them and those least likely to have occupational sick pay provision, the Government will increase discrimination at the point of recruitment against the potentially sick and disabled. My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) made a particularly valid point on that and other issues.
That has happened since the rebate was reduced in 1991 from 100 per cent. to 80 per cent. The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux amassed evidence showing that the number of employers refusing to honour statutory sick-pay entitlement, paying any sick pay or threatening redundancy or dismissal has increased. Such unofficial practices are a symptom of the vulnerability of employees when jobs are scarce. The Bill will impose even more financial pressure on employers and encourage the spread of bad employment practices.
The Institute of Directors is another organisation to which we seldom refer in argument, but its spokesperson stated:
Parliament has decided that sick pay is a social benefit, but the Government is trying to make employers bear the cost of providing it. That may well harm the employment prospects of people with pre-existing medical conditions. They should not be penalised because they are disabled or sick—but the Government is making them uncompetitive in the labour market.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice) made a similar point.
During the debate on yesterday's outrageous guillotine motion, the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People referred to the report awaited from the Public Accounts Committee on the impact of the 1991 statutory sick pay changes. He had no basis on which to assert that the report's content would support his arguments. In fact, he told the House that he had not even read the report, but still prayed it in aid. That demonstrates that a crucial body

of available evidence that could have provided substance for this debate has been ignored in the Government's haste to pass the Bill.
I suspect that the report does not support the Government's case, which is why the guillotine was introduced. The Government want to get the Bill away before the PAC report undermines their case even further.
I would like to make a number of other points, but we shall begin another debate later this evening, so I now ask the Minister to respond to the specific questions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden, which I repeated. We await his answers.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. William Hague): This has been an interesting and varied debate, in which a large number of points were raised. We heard the first speech from the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) as a member of the Opposition Front Bench, to which I welcome him. I look forward to many more exchanges with the hon. Gentleman across the Dispatch Box.
I have never heard a debate in which so many Opposition Members quoted business organisations, prayed them in aid, and recited Confederation of British Industry briefs and other documents. That is a hazardous tactic when the CBI concluded that
the CBI does not wish to oppose the SSP Bill.
It is equally hazardous to pray in aid the Institute of Directors, because we are informed that it would welcome the SSP and national insurance changes overall, provided that the Government are prepared to mount a fundamental review of the SSP scheme's compliance burden on business. I am happy to confirm that we will look at that scheme in conjunction with employers, to determine the scope for cutting red tape without affecting employees' rights. We will consider also whether firms offering generous occupational sick pay could opt out of the SSP sick scheme. Quoting employers is a dangerous tactic for Opposition Members.

Mr. Mandelson: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hague: I want to develop these points, because I was asked a number of questions. I will give way in a moment.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) asked about the European equal treatment directive. The reason why women must be entitled to SSP until they are 65 is that, once reimbursement is abolished, SSP will become a form of pay and, therefore, outside the scope of the pension age derogation from the EC equal treatment directive. Retirement pension, however, will still be a benefit and thus still subject to the derogation. It will still be possible to pay retirement pension on a different age basis to women and men and there should be no scope for legal doubt about that. We do not expect any of the difficulties that the hon. Gentleman described.
The hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) appeared to be under a number of misapprehensions. She spoke of the payments that people have made over many years to the national insurance fund, but statutory sick pay is not a national insurance benefit and so is not met by that fund. I wonder whether the calculation she cited, provided by a small business in her constituency, took account of reductions in national insurance contributions that are part and parcel of the policy and of considerable benefit to


businesses of all sizes. The most damning quotation that the hon. Lady could give in respect of large businesses was that IBM is "looking into the measures". She says that the policy is to get the Government out of a public sector borrowing requirement hole, but the policy does not reduce the PSBR, because the reduction in national insurance contributions more than offsets the reduction in statutory sick pay.

Mr. Mandelson: The hon. Gentleman's argument relies on the assumption that the compensating decrease in national insurance contributions will remain just that—decreased. Will he take this opportunity to give a firm and unequivocal undertaking to the House that that compensating decrease will not under any circumstances be reversed in future years? If he were not to do so, his remarks would appear extremely hollow.

Mr. Hague: The hon. Member knows that neither the Government nor the Opposition are likely to give commitments about the future level of national insurance contributions. We can, however, point very clearly to our record on employers' national insurance contributions, which for lower-paid employees will be 3.6 per cent. after the change, compared with 13.5 per cent. in 1979. Any employer who is concerned about that has to do no more than consider the record of each party in office to see what is most likely to happen.

Mr. Dewar: Employers may well be unnecessarily suspicious, but the Minister must accept that the prospect causes them to look forward with fear. The other aspect is the argument made by the Confederation of British Industry and various other organisations about the likely shift of other benefits on to the employer. Industrial injury benefit has been especially canvassed, as has maternity benefit. Can he perhaps help us on that subject, by telling us that there are no plans, and no intention, to move further down that road?

Mr. Hague: I recognise that the hon. Member, in his speech as well as his intervention, would prefer to argue against changes that he imagines and foresees rather than against the Bill. This is the Second Reading of the Statutory Sick Pay Bill. That is the subject of our debate. It may help the Opposition to tilt at all types of targets that have not been presented to them, but those targets are not on offer this evening; I can assure the hon. Gentleman of that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) asked for an assurance about complexity and I can give him the same assurance that I gave a few moments ago; we will discuss with employers the further scope for cutting red tape.
The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) mentioned a number of issues. He especially mentioned the construction industry and asked whether such an industry would be placed at a particular disadvantage. The construction industry has an average of about 3 per cent. of employees claiming statutory sick pay, so it is most unlikely to be disadvantaged in any way. In fact, it should be a net beneficiary of the change in statutory sick pay and national insurance contributions if one takes them together.
The hon. Member for Burnley also asked how the Government will ensure that employees are getting their proper entitlement, and whether there are a large number of cases in which they are not. The abolition of SSP

reimbursement will have no effect on an employees' entitlement to SSP, but, should a dispute arise between an employee and his or her employer about entitlement, it can be resolved by adjudication procedures.
Where an employer fails to comply with a decision of the adjudicating authorities within the prescribed time and does not appeal, the Secretary of State will assume responsibility for payment, and legal proceedings against the employer will be considered for his non-payment. Inspectors of the Contributions Agency already operate a system of spot-checking of employers' pay records and that will continue. Officials have discussed with the Trades Union Congress the possibility of displaying a new poster in workplaces, reminding employees of their rights. The design and wording of a poster, together with a leaflet, are being evaluated.
A great deal is being done, therefore, and a great deal of redress is available to employees who think that they may be entitled to statutory sick pay, but are not receiving it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring) rightly pointed to the experience of London boroughs in reducing, when they made an effort to do so, the average number of days of absence through sickness in three years from 17 days on average to 11·5. He drew attention—also quite rightly—to the Financial Times article of 8 December, only a week ago, which listed a large number of companies that have taken the initiative, have tried to reduce sickness levels in their companies and have had tremendous success in doing so.
To quote one example from the article,
Vauxhall, the UK car maker, has reduced its sickness absenteeism from 8·8 per cent. in 1986 to 4·5 per cent. today. This was after the company introduced a negotiated incentive scheme which saved employees about £4 a week in contributions to the company sick pay scheme if average levels of sick leave could be kept at or below 5 per cent.
The article points out:
Many factors underlie improved absence records, but whether it is knowing that someone in management cares or fearing that they are watching, both approaches seem more effective than the alternative of managerial neglect.
It is managerial neglect of the issue which we are tackling with the Bill. Opposition Members have underestimated the difference that can be made by giving employers an incentive to tackle the problem. It may seem a trivial example, but what happened in Sweden, that paradise of social provision, when they abolished state sick pay for the first two weeks of sickness? Did employers then say, "We are going to sack people who are ill for a short time"? They actually ran out of influenza vaccine in Sweden because employers went on such a campaign of immunising their employees against sickness.
A great deal can be done by employers to help with the health of their employees and a great deal more is being done by some employers. That should be recognised by Opposition Members.
I have already referred to the fact that the CBI says in its much-quoted brief that it does not wish to oppose the Bill. The problem for the hon. Member for Garscadden and his colleagues tonight was that they did not wish to oppose the Bill, but felt that they ought to do so. He said at one point in his speech, when my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willets) had intervened, that he feared that he would go off the road and into a field. When one listened to the hon. Gentleman's speech, one found that, first, he had a principal fear that people might be squeezed from their benefits, but he also feared that we might make the


scheme more generous for employees and that employers would have to pay more. He said that at first he was afraid that there was a major transfer of costs to employers, but then realised that there was not. He said that he accepted that sickness absence figures were not good and ought to be improved, but he failed to offer any alternative.
It was rather less like going off a road and into a field than going round an endlessly confusing roundabout, with many signals pointing in different directions and with the hon. Gentleman at the wheel of the car, careering around the roundabout, peering into the distance, looking for something that would come over the horizon which would present a more attractive target than the Bill before the House at the time. He ought to reflect on some of his comments in that speech.

Mr. Dewar: rose—

Mr. Hague: I have only three minutes left, so I think that I should tell the hon. Gentleman that the Bill is an opportunity to improve the sickness record of industry; it is an opportunity to clarify responsibility for sickness rates; it is an opportunity to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy in the future; it is an opportunity to reduce the overall total and burden of public expenditure; it is an opportunity to reduce industry's costs through a major offsetting reduction in national insurance contributions, a reduction to a level which a Labour Government could never have contemplated and which, for low-paid employees, is a fraction of the levels under a Labour Government.
After this change, when the employee's and employer's contributions are added together, the national insurance contribution payable for an employee on a weekly wage of £130 will be £15·72. It would have amounted to £26 a week in 1979. That is a dramatic reduction.
What is the attitude of the Opposition to this proposal? Blindly to oppose, without having a better proposal—without any proposal—to put before the House. They are not doing so in the interests of employees, because their sickness payments will be maintained, or in the interests of the disabled, because they have a better than average sickness record, or in the interests of small businesses, because they will be better off, and they are not doing it in the interests of well-managed, large businesses because they have a great opportunity to reduce their sickness rates.
In this debate, the Opposition have been reduced to being the defenders of weak, complacent and inefficient management—the only people who stand to gain from their attitude. Perhaps, after their performance with parliamentary procedures during the past two weeks, they identify to a certain extent with weak and inefficient management and that is why they have taken that stance tonight. I urge all my hon. Friends to support the Second Reading.

It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to the Order yesterday.

The House divided: Ayes 308, Noes 268.

Division No. 43]
[8.50 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)


Alexander, Richard
Allason, Rupert (Torbay)





Amess, David
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Evennett, David


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Faber, David


Ashby, David
Fabricant, Michael


Aspinwall, Jack
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Fishburn, Dudley


Baldry, Tony
Forman, Nigel


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Batiste, Spencer
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Bellingham, Henry
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Bendall, Vivian
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Beresford, Sir Paul
French, Douglas


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fry, Peter


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Gale, Roger


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gallie, Phil


Booth, Hartley
Gardiner, Sir George


Boswell, Tim
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Garnier, Edward


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Gill, Christopher


Bowden, Andrew
Gillan, Cheryl


Bowis, John
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brandreth, Gyles
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Brazier, Julian
Gorst, John


Bright, Graham
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Grylls, Sir Michael


Budgen, Nicholas
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Burns, Simon
Hague, William


Burt, Alistair
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Butcher, John
Hampson, Dr Keith


Butler, Peter
Hannam, Sir John


Butterfill, John
Hargreaves, Andrew


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Harris, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Haselhurst, Alan


Carrington, Matthew
Hawkins, Nick


Carttiss, Michael
Hawksley, Warren


Cash, William
Hayes, Jerry


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Heald, Oliver


Churchill, Mr
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clappison, James
Hendry, Charles


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hicks, Robert


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Coe, Sebastian
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Colvin, Michael
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Congdon, David
Horam, John


Conway, Derek
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Cormack, Patrick
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Couchman, James
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Cran, James
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hunter, Andrew


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jack, Michael


Day, Stephen
Jenkin, Bernard


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jessel, Toby


Devlin, Tim
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dicks, Terry
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Dorrell, Stephen
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dover, Den
Key, Robert


Duncan, Alan
Kilfedder, Sir James


Duncan-Smith, Iain
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dunn, Bob
Kirkhope, Timothy


Durant, Sir Anthony
Knapman, Roger


Dykes, Hugh
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Eggar, Tim
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Knox, Sir David


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui






Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Sackville, Tom


Legg, Barry
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Leigh, Edward
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lidington, David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lightbown, David
Shersby, Michael


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Sims, Roger


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lord, Michael
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Luff, Peter
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Soames, Nicholas


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Speed, Sir Keith


MacKay, Andrew
Spencer, Sir Derek


Maclean, David
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Spink, Dr Robert


Madel, David
Spring, Richard


Maitland, Lady Olga
Sproat, Iain


Major, Rt Hon John
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Malone, Gerald
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mans, Keith
Steen, Anthony


Marland, Paul
Stephen, Michael


Marlow, Tony
Stern, Michael


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Stewart, Allan


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Streeter, Gary


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Sumberg, David


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Sweeney, Walter


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Sykes, John


Merchant, Piers
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Milligan, Stephen
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Mills, Iain
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Thomason, Roy


Moate, Sir Roger
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Monro, Sir Hector
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Moss, Malcolm
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Needham, Richard
Thurnham, Peter


Nelson, Anthony
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Tracey, Richard


Nicholls, Patrick
Tredinnick, David


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Trend, Michael


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Trotter, Neville


Norris, Steve
Twinn, Dr Ian


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Oppenheim, Phillip
Viggers, Peter


Ottaway, Richard
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Page, Richard
Walden, George


Paice, James
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Patnick, Irvine
Waller, Gary


Patten, Rt Hon John
Ward, John


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Pawsey, James
Waterson, Nigel


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Watts, John


Pickles, Eric
Wells, Bowen


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Whitney, Ray


Porter, David (Waveney)
Whittingdale, John


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Widdecombe, Ann


Powell, William (Corby)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Rathbone, Tim
Wilkinson, John


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Willetts, David


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Wilshire, David


Richards, Rod
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Riddick, Graham
Winterton, Nicholas, (Macc'f'ld)


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Wolfson, Mark


Robathan, Andrew
Wood, Timothy


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)



Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Mr. James Arbuthnot




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Allen, Graham


Adams, Mrs Irene
Alton, David


Ainger, Nick
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)





Armstrong, Hilary
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Ashton, Joe
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Austin-Walker, John
Foulkes, George


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Fraser, John


Barnes, Harry
Fyfe, Maria


Barron, Kevin
Gapes, Mike


Battle, John
Garrett, John


Bayley, Hugh
George, Bruce


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Gerrard, Neil


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Bell, Stuart
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Godsiff, Roger


Bennett, Andrew F.
Golding, Mrs Llin


Benton, Joe
Gould, Bryan


Bermingham, Gerald
Graham, Thomas


Berry, Dr. Roger
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Betts, Clive
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Blair, Tony
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Boateng, Paul
Grocott, Bruce


Boyes, Roland
Gunnell, John


Bradley, Keith
Hain, Peter


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hall, Mike


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Hanson, David


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Hardy, Peter


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Burden, Richard
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Byers, Stephen
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Caborn, Richard
Hinchliffe, David


Callaghan, Jim
Hoey, Kate


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Home Robertson, John


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hood, Jimmy


Canavan, Dennis
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cann, Jamie
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)


Clapham, Michael
Hoyle, Doug


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Clelland, David
Hutton, John


Coffey, Ann
Illsley, Eric


Cohen, Harry
Ingram, Adam


Connarty, Michael
Jackson, Glenda (H'Stead)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Jamieson, David


Corbett, Robin
Janner, Greville


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Corston, Ms Jean
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Cousins, Jim
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Cox, Tom
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Cummings, John
Jowell, Tessa


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Keen, Alan


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Darling, Alistair
Khabra, Piara S.


Davidson, Ian
Kilfoyle, Peter


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Lewis, Terry


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Litherland, Robert


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
Livingstone, Ken


Denham, John
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dewar, Donald
Llwyd, Elfyn


Dixon, Don
Loyden, Eddie


Dobson, Frank
Lynne, Ms Liz


Donohoe, Brian H.
McAllion, John


Dowd, Jim
McAvoy, Thomas


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McCartney, Ian


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McCrea, Rev William


Eagle, Ms Angela
Macdonald, Calum


Eastham, Ken
McFall, John


Enright, Derek
McKelvey, William


Etherington, Bill
Mackinlay, Andrew


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McLeish, Henry


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Maclennan, Robert


Fatchett, Derek
McMaster, Gordon


Faulds, Andrew
McNamara, Kevin


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
McWilliam, John


Fisher, Mark
Madden, Max


Flynn, Paul
Maddock, Mrs Diana






Mahon, Alice
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Mandelson, Peter
Rowlands, Ted


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Ruddock, Joan


Martlew, Eric
Salmond, Alex


Maxton, John
Sedgemore, Brian


Meacher, Michael
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Michael, Alun
Short, Clare


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Simpson, Alan


Milburn, Alan
Skinner, Dennis


Miller, Andrew
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Morgan, Rhodri
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Morley, Elliot
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Snape, Peter


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Soley, Clive


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Spearing, Nigel


Mowlam, Marjorie
Spellar, John


Mudie, George
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Mullin, Chris
Steinberg, Gerry


Murphy, Paul
Stevenson, George


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Stott, Roger


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Strang, Dr. Gavin


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Straw, Jack


O'Hara, Edward
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Olner, William
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


O'Neill, Martin
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Tipping, Paddy


Paisley, Rev Ian
Turner, Dennis


Parry, Robert
Tyler, Paul


Patchett, Terry
Vaz, Keith


Pendry, Tom
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Pickthall, Colin
Wallace, James


Pike, Peter L.
Walley, Joan


Pope, Greg
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Wareing, Robert N


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Watson, Mike


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Welsh, Andrew


Prescott, John
Wicks, Malcolm


Primarolo, Dawn
Wigley, Dafydd


Purchase, Ken
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Radice, Giles
Wilson, Brian


Randall, Stuart
Winnick, David


Raynsford, Nick
Wise, Audrey


Redmond, Martin
Worthington, Tony


Reid, Dr John
Wray, Jimmy


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Wright, Dr Tony


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Roche, Mrs. Barbara



Rogers, Allan
Tellers for the Noes:


Rooker, Jeff
Mr. Jon Owen Jones and


Rooney, Terry
Mr. Alan Meale

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second Time and committed to a Committee of the whole House, pursuant to the Order yesterday.

[MR. GEOFFREY LOFTHOUSE in the Chair.]

Division No. 44]
[10.00 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Day, Stephen


Alexander, Richard
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Devlin, Tim


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Amess, David
Dicks, Terry


Arbuthnot, James
Dorrell, Stephen


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Dover, Den


Ashby, David
Duncan, Alan


Aspinwall, Jack
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Dunn, Bob


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Dykes, Hugh


Baldry, Tony
Eggar, Tim


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Bates, Michael
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Batiste, Spencer
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Bellingham, Henry
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Bendall, Vivian
Evennett, David


Beresford, Sir Paul
Fabricant, Michael


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Booth, Hartley
Fishburn, Dudley


Boswell, Tim
Forman, Nigel


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bowden, Andrew
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Bowis, John
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Brandreth, Gyles
French, Douglas


Brazier, Julian
Fry, Peter


Bright, Graham
Gale, Roger


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gallie, Phil


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Gardiner, Sir George


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Garnier, Edward


Budgen, Nicholas
Gill, Christopher


Burns, Simon
Gillan, Cheryl


Burt, Alistair
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Butcher, John
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Butler, Peter
Gorst, John


Butterfill, John
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Carrington, Matthew
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Carttiss, Michael
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Cash, William
Hague, William


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Churchill, Mr
Hampson, Dr Keith


Clappison, James
Hannam, Sir John


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Harris, David


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Haselhurst, Alan


Coe, Sebastian
Hawkins, Nick


Colvin, Michael
Hawksley, Warren


Congdon, David
Hayes, Jerry


Conway, Derek
Heald, Oliver


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hendry, Charles


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Cormack, Patrick
Hicks, Robert


Couchman, James
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Cran, James
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Horam, John


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter






Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Patnick, Irvine


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Pawsey, James


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Pickles, Eric


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hunter, Andrew
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Powell, William (Corby)


Jack, Michael
Rathbone, Tim


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Jenkin, Bernard
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Jessel, Toby
Richards, Rod


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Riddick, Graham


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Robathan, Andrew


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Key, Robert
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Kilfedder, Sir James
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Kirkhope, Timothy
Ryder Rt Hon Richard


Knapman, Roger
Sackville, Tom


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knox, Sir David
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Sheresby, Michael


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Sims, Roger


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Legg, Barry
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Leigh, Edward
Speed, Sir Keith


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lidington, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lightbown, David
Spink, Dr Robert


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Spring, Richard


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Sproat, Iain


Lord, Michael
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Luff, Peter
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Steen, Anthony


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stephen, Michael


MacKay, Andrew
Stern, Michael


Maclean, David
Stewart, Allan


McLoughlin, Patrick
Streeter, Gary


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Sumberg, David


Madel, David
Sweeney, Walter


Maitland, Lady Olga
Sykes, John


Major, Rt Hon John
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Malone, Gerald
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Mans, Keith
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Marland, Paul
Thomason, Roy


Marlow, Tony
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thurnham, Peter


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Merchant, Piers
Tracey, Richard


Milligan, Stephen
Tredinnick, David


Mills, Iain
Trend, Michael


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Trotter, Neville


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Moate, Sir Roger
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Monro, Sir Hector
Viggers, Peter


Moss, Malcolm
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Needham, Richard
Walden, George


Nelson, Anthony
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Waller, Gary


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Ward, John


Nicholls, Patrick
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Waterson, Nigel


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Watts, John


Norris, Steve
Wells, Bowen


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Whitney, Ray


Ottaway, Richard
Whittingdale, John


Page, Richard
Widdecombe, Ann


Paice, James
Wiggin, Sir Jerry





Wilkinson, John
Wood, Timothy


Willetts, David
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Wilshire, David



Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)
Mr. Sydney, Chapman and


Wolfson, Mark
Mr. Michael Brown.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Dixon, Don


Adams, Mrs Irene
Dobson, Frank


Ainger, Nick
Donohoe, Brain H.


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Dowd, Jim


Allen, Graham
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Eagle, Ms Angela


Armstrong, Hilary
Eastham, Ken


Ashton, Joe
Enright, Derek


Austin-Walker, John
Etherington, Bill


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Barnes, Harry
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Barron, Kevin
Fatchett, Derek


Battle, John
Faulds, Andrew


Bayley, Hugh
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Fisher, Mark


Beggs, Roy
Flynn, Paul


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Bell, Stuart
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Foulkes, George


Bennett, Andrew F.
Fraser, John


Benton, Joe
Fyfe, Maria


Bermingham, Gerald
Gapes, Mike


Berry, Dr. Roger
Garrett, John


Betts, Clive
George, Bruce


Blair, Tony
Gerrard, Neil


Blunkett, David
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Boateng, Paul
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Boyes, Roland
Godsiff, Roger


Bradley, Keith
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Gould, Bryan


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Graham, Thomas


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon[...] Tyne E)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Burden, Richard
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Byers, Stephen
Grocott, Bruce


Caborn, Richard
Gunnell, John


Callaghan, Jim
Hain, Peter


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hall, Mike


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hanson, David


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hardy, Peter


Canavan, Dennis
Harman, Ms Harriet


Cann, Jamie
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Clapham, Michael
Hinchliffe, David


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hoey, Kate


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Home Robertson, John


Clelland, David
Hood, Jimmy


Coffey, Ann
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cohen, Harry
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Connarty, Michael
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hoyle, Doug


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Corston, Ms Jean
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cousins, Jim
Hutton, John


Cox, Tom
Illsley, Eric


Cryer, Bob
Ingram, Adam


Cummings, John
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Janner, Greville


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Dafis, Cynog
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Darling, Alistair
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Jowell, Tessa


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
Keen, Alan


Denham, John
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)


Dewar, Donald
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)






Khabra, Piara S.
Purchase, Ken


Kilfoyle, Peter
Quin, Ms Joyce


Leighton, Ron
Randall, Stuart


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Raynsford, Nick


Lewis, Terry
Redmond, Martin


Litherland, Robert
Reid, Dr John


Livingstone, Ken
Rendel, David


Llwyd, Elfyn
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Loyden, Eddie
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Lynne, Ms Liz
Rogers, Allan


McAllion, John
Rooker, Jeff


McAvoy, Thomas
Rooney, Terry


McCartney, Ian
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McCrea, Rev William
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Macdonald, Calum
Rowlands, Ted


McKelvey, William
Ruddock, Joan


Mackinlay, Andrew
Salmond, Alex


McLeish, Henry
Sedgemore, Brian


McMaster, Gordon
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McNamara, Kevin
Short, Clare


McWilliam, John
Simpson, Alan


Madden, Max
Skinner, Dennis


Mahon, Alice
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Mandelson, Peter
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S& F'sbury)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Martlew, Eric
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Maxton, John
Snape, Peter


Meacher, Michael
Soley, Clive


Meale, Alan
Spearing, Nigel


Michael, Alun
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Steinberg, Gerry


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Stevenson, George


Milburn, Alan
Stott, Roger


Miller, Andrew
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Morgan, Rhodri
Tipping, Paddy


Morley, Elliot
Turner, Dennis


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Tyler, Paul


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Vaz, Keith


Mowlam, Marjorie
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Mudie, George
Walley, Joan


Mullin, Chris
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Murphy, Paul
Wareing, Robert N


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Watson, Mike


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Welsh, Andrew


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Wicks, Malcolm


O'Hara, Edward
Wigley, Dafydd


Olner, William
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


O'Neill, Martin
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wilson, Brian


Parry, Robert
Winnick, David


Patchett, Terry
Wise, Audrey


Pendry, Tom
Worthington, Tony


Pickthall, Colin
Wray, Jimmy


Pike, Peter L.
Wright, Dr Tony


Pope, Greg
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)



Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Tellers for the Noes:


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Mr. John Spellar and


Prescott, John
Mr. Jack Thompson.


Primarolo, Dawn

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 1

RESTRICTION OF EMPLOYERS' RIGHT OF RECOVERY

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Keith Bradley: As you know, Mr. Lofthouse, normally after Second Reading we should reflect quietly on the Minister's views and on his response to the many excellent contributions made and pertinent points raised during the debate. Then we should be able to go in good order into Committee—we would have expected that to take place some time after Christmas

—which would have given us the opportunity to consider the clauses in great detail and to move suitable amendments.
It is with great regret that, because the Government are forcing the Bill through with such haste, we are now having to reflect quickly on what was said on Second Reading and move straight on to the Committee stage.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said, the Bill has been framed so as to make it effectively a one-clause Bill. To ensure that we can continue to debate in the same constructive way as we debated Second Reading, we have chosen to discuss clause stand part immediately, so that we can pursue some of the crucial questions that were raised on Second Reading but were not well answered by the Government.
The Under-Secretary of State gave an interesting winding-up speech, in which he chose to denigrate the many organisations that oppose the Bill, describing them in the unique phrase "inefficient management". That is how he regards the collective experience of the Institute of Directors, the Confederation of British Industry and the Federation of Small Businesses, all of which were extensively quoted on Second Reading.
For example, we heard how Peter Morgan of the Institute of Directors said that the Bill would impose
a heavy compliance burden on employers".
The fact that the Under-Secretary of State said that that was a quotation from an organisation representing inefficient management will be well noted by all the organisations of which he chose to speak in those terms.
It is clear from all the representations that my hon. Friends and I have received from small and large businesses throughout the country that there is great anxiety about the Bill. As the CBI has said, it poses fundamental questions about who shall bear the cost of social security provision. On clause stand part, we shall pursue that line of argument.
As we have heard, the Bill transfers a burden of £750 million on to small businesses. Much has been made of the compensation, through the reduction by regulation of the national insurance contribution, but—I am sure that this is what lies behind much of the anxiety of the many organisations that represent business—no one knows what the future may hold.
It is especially relevant that, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), who asked about future increases in national insurance, the Minister could not give any assurance that, in future years, more national insurance burdens would not be placed back on small businesses. Not only do they have the burden of paying sick pay, but there is no guarantee that in future additional burdens will not be placed on them.
We already have evidence to suggest that, when the rebate was reduced from 100 per cent. to 80 per cent., many representations were made through the National Audit Office. The National Audit Office report "Statutory Sick Pay and Statutory Maternity Pay" of January 1993 said:
Some employers and organisations representing them told the National Audit Office that they believed the 1991 changes to the Statutory Sick Pay scheme had increased employers costs".
Their anxieties and fears about the future are well-founded.
It was also interesting to note that, when pressed for guarantees about the future impositions on small businesses—especially having to pay for maternity pay


and also for industrial injuries—again the Minister could give no assurance whatever that those businesses would not be expected to bear those burdens.
All those worries which have been expressed through the various organisations are the key to why we are right to press for more clear answers on the clause stand part debate. Would there be extra burdens on the business community as a result of transferring the burden of other benefits? Would the Minister give an assurance about the possible extra costs through the national insurance scheme? When the Minister has a second bite of the cherry in winding up, perhaps he will give clearer answers to those questions.
When we were looking through the Second Reading debate, it became clear that there would be a real cost to small employers. In his Budget speech, the Chancellor gave the impression that there would be no cost to small employers. However, in his statement on the uprating of benefit, the Secretary of State told the House:
From April next year, I propose to abolish reimbursement, except to small employers … So far, we have been reimbursing 100 per cent. of statutory sick pay for absences of longer than six weeks. I shall start giving 100 per cent. help after four weeks." —[Official Report, 1 December 1993; Vol. 233, c. 1038.]
It is clear from the evidence of relief to small firms that there would be a real burden on them during that four-week period. Evidence shows that three quarters of sick leave cases are shorter than four weeks, so the full costs would have to be borne by those small businesses. They would lose and not be fully compensated by the proposed scheme.
The effect on a company of few employees that are struck down by illness is important to consider. We have already heard whether Peking flu does or does not hit employers. Judging from how many constituents have been laid low recently, my hon. Friends and I know of the devastating impact that such illnesses can have on small businesses. I have my own bitter experience: I recently moved house and employed builders to carry out some renovation work. Since all the builders were struck down with flu, improvements have been dramatically delayed. I hope that they will be finished by Christmas, but I digress.
One of the crucial issues that need to be explored in more detail is the vulnerability of emloyees. In his opening remarks on Second Reading, the Secretary of State said that there was no evidence at all that vulnerable groups of people, especially people with disabilities, would in any way be disadvantaged by the changes in sick pay legislation.
I beg to differ. There is a mound of evidence to support the alternative view that employers look closely at sickness records and the potential sickness of people before they employ them. Millions of people who are at work would be affected by that change. Three million people looking for work at the moment would have to face the fact that employers will obviously take on those who have not been ill recently.
The legislation will mean that thousands of people who are capable of work but not in perfect health will fall into a trap between invalidity benefit and work. They cannot get work because they have poor health, but they cannot get benefit because they are not judged sick enough to be unable to work.
In his Budget speech, the Chancellor said:
companies would have a much sharper incentive to improve their management of sick leave and to take a greater interest in the health of their employees."—[Official Report, 30 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 926.]

Although we welcome any improvement in the management of sick pay, in practice it means that employers will look more carefully at the health record of potential employees. People with genuine health problems who also have the ability and need to work may be overlooked because of the imposition of sick pay.
A great deal of evidence has already been brought to hon. Members' attention in reports such as that undertaken by the citizens advice bureaux. That report shows that, far from caring for their employees' health, employers are now more likely to dismiss workers who fall sick. They may also be deterred from recruiting people who are more likely to require time off due to illness.
On Second Reading, the Secretary of State said that there was no evidence to support such claims. I urge him to read the excellent report produced by the citizens advice bureaux—he may then become more knowledgable about the real practices of employers, instead of relying on some rather dubious claims.
9.15 pm
Although this is a clause stand part debate, it is important to consider the interrelationship between sick pay and the changes that will be made to disability benefits, especially the proposed introduction of the incapacity benefit. In determining incapacity benefit, a far more draconian set of considerations, questionnaires and assessments will be used than was the case for invalidity benefit.
The number of people who may be entitled to incapacity benefit will be limited and, at the same time, employers will examine sickness and health records more carefully before taking on employees. At a time of very high unemployment, it is clear that employers have that choice, and that is the way in which they will proceed.
Let us consider a recent survey of employers' attitudes undertaken by Sussex university. It covered 1,000 organisations and showed the damaging impact of the myth that is often propagated and used by employers, that disabled people are likely to be less productive and have bad sickness records. According to the study, 10 per cent. of employers were worried about the sickness levels of disabled people, without any evidence to back their arguments, and despite all the evidence to the contrary.
In fact, 93 per cent. of people questioned in a study in Devon showed that disabled workers performed better than able-bodied workers; 43 per cent. of those questioned reported that disabled workers' attitude to work was better, and 55 per cent. rated it equally; 70 per cent. rated disabled workers' attendance as equally good, and 26 per cent. rated it higher. There are a great many myths about disabled people, and the legislation, coupled with the new provisions for the incapacity benefit, may reinforce them and make it even more difficult for disabled people to obtain work.
When the Minister replies, I hope that he will give an assurance not only that he will consider those studies and the way in which sick pay legislation is enforced but that, before introducing the new proposals on the incapacity benefit, and before rigidly drawing up the criteria on which that benefit will be paid, he will take into account the views that I have described and incorporate them into the system.
If he does not, we shall create a tranche of people who are perceived by employers to be too sick to work but not sick enough by the Government's standards to receive


incapacity benefit. That could cause great distress and anxiety to thousands—if not millions—of potential workers.
The Government should not only monitor those issues but consider whether some outside body, such as the Equal Opportunities Commission, should undertake independent research. The Equal Opportunities Commission is justifiably well respected by the Government, and it may be appropriate for it, or an alternative body, to report to Parliament. We could then be satisfied that these issues are being properly addressed, and that employers are not using bad operational practices to limit the number of people with health problems who are taken on.
On Second Reading, one of the crucial issues was the changing of the words "over pensionable age" to "over the age of 65", and how that would work in practice. Women in particular are anxious to know whether they will be able to claim sick pay, which becomes a payment, and a pension, which becomes a benefit. We would welcome a Government assurance on that issue.
We have debated the way in which the Statutory Sick Pay Bill will operate in practice and how individual employees' rights can be enforced. The Minister, winding up on Second Reading, said that the Government had produced pamphlets and posters to publicise employees' rights, and ensure that they were properly identified.
According to a report issued by the National Audit Office, in January 1993, that is part of the problem with the Statutory Sick Pay Bill:
Employees do not always receive adequate information. They"—
the DSS—
need to consider what more can be done to ensure that people working for such employers are informed about their right under the scheme. There is also evidence that many payments of benefit are inaccurate … Inspectors have consistently found monetary errors in 25 to 30 per cent. of the Statutory Sick Pay and Statutory Maternity Pay cases examined".
While I welcome the fact that the Department is looking at that aspect of the Bill, what mechanisms and staff resources will be employed to ensure that such errors are stamped out, in addition to publicity posters?
Bad practices also need to be stamped out. Various devices are used by some employers to try to curtail the payment of statutory sick pay, such as dismissal, threats of dismissal and not allowing people proper time off for ill health. Will the Minister assure the House that the Government are taking those issues seriously, and say what action they will take effectively to police the new arrangements?
Many organisations representing disabled and sick people have contacted us to express their great concerns about the Bill. I hope that the Government will not dismiss such representations lightly, as they have in previous debates on the Bill. These are very serious issues, and we will monitor them closely during the next few months.
The House should receive an annual report on how the Bill is operating in practice, and that issue could perhaps be discussed when the regulations are introduced. Otherwise, the anxieties will not go away. We shall feel not only that small firms are right to worry about facing greater burdens at a time when they are trying to increase employment and emerge from the recession, but that they are right to fear that further costs—such as maternity pay—are just around the corner. I hope that the Minister will allay many of those fears.

Mr. George Foulkes: I wish that a proper Standing Committee had been set up to deal with the Bill. I would certainly have volunteered to serve on it and to support my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and his excellent Front-Bench team.
Over the weekend, I spent a good deal of time in my constituency. I had a surgery in Cumnock, and another in Maybole; I visited people in Catrine; I spoke at a meeting in Troon—which, admittedly, is in another hon. Member's constituency—and at another in Ayr. Everyone was outraged by the contempt with which the Government are treating the House of Commons, Parliament and this country's democratic processes. This Bill, and the one that we shall discuss tomorrow, are important and should be dealt with properly in Committee.
Let me identify some items that should have been discussed in more detail and some of the pitfalls that may befall the Department and the Secretary of State in particular. I have nothing against the Minister of State or the Parliamentary Under-Secretary; indeed, I believe that the Minister of State is one of the longest-serving Ministers in the Government. I have seen him in so many guises that I find it difficult to remember which Department he is in.

The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I think that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Welsh Office would object to that allegation.

Mr. Foulkes: The Minister is not quite the father of the Government, but he is quite near it.
The Secretary of State is very much a hate figure in my constituency. I am glad that he is ultimately responsible for any action taken against the Government in this regard. The other day—I do not know whether I am out of order in saying this, Mr. Lofthouse, but I am sure that you will correct me if I am—

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Gentleman must address his remarks to clause 1 stand part.

Mr. Foulkes: I was coming to that, Mr. Lofthouse. I just wanted to say that I saw the Secretary of State wearing an Adam Smith Institute tie. When I commented that it gave away his true thinking and position in his party, the right hon. Gentleman said, "No, it does not; I am far to the right of the Adam Smith Institute." That shows the truth of what is happening.
Practical problems will arise, because the Bill has not been scrutinised properly. We have excellent civil servants, but—with the best will in the world—although all those civil servants and legal draftsmen produce Bills, Parliament is ultimately responsible for scrutinising them. We have constituency experience: people come to our surgeries and raise practical problems. We understand the difficulties and can draw attention to them in the House.
Let us suppose that an employer challenges the interpretation of part of the Bill in court. As I understand it, normally it has been the practice to refer to proceedings in Committee and to what the Minister said in response to a question from a member or the Opposition spokesman, as being the definitive interpretation of that part of the Bill. We have not gone through the Committee issue by issue,


item by item, so it will be vague and difficult to understand exactly what is meant by any aspect if it is challenged in court.
Another issue that should have been explored is the change in age from 60 to 65 years. There are many potential pitfalls with which the Government have not dealt. I tabled a question the other day about the Greenock judgment in the European Court, its interpretation and whether the judgment would have any effect on that aspect. I received a vague reply from the Minister. I do not think that there is an understanding in the Department about whether there will be a practical effect. Perhaps the Minister will answer that.
9.30 pm
Another matter concerns people who work overseas. Increasingly, as we move into what we must now call the European Union, more workers travel overseas. They still work for a British employer and are still on the books in the United Kingdom. We needed to explore particular aspects of that, but we have not had an opportunity to explore them at all.
Questions were raised by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and by my hon. Friends on the Front Bench about the positive incentive to dismiss workers who are sick. That worries me. I would have enjoyed being on the Committee, especially with my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden, who, with his legal brain and penetrating mind, has the facility for getting to the essence of a particular issue.
I should have liked to explore what would happen if there was a positive incentive —as we think that there is —for employers to say, "Okay, this guy has been off sick too often. We'll dismiss him." Will it alter the ability of a dismissed worker to raise his case at the industrial tribunal? Will it increase or decrease the likelihood of his getting compensation and reinstatement? We should have had the opportunity to explore that matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), who has just spoken from the Front Bench, raised the question of employment of disabled people in the Community. Although there is no statutory responsibility in relation to specific numbers, there is a requirement on employers to take on a certain percentage of disabled people. I agree with my hon. Friend that employers will be much more reluctant to take on disabled people and are therefore more likely to be in breach of their statutory responsibilities. That raises all sorts of issues.
Recently, half a million people with occupational pensions were literally conned into taking out private pensions. That is the sort of thing that can happen. I worry that such examples will be much more prevalent as we move forward with this kind of Bill. It is astonishing, and it comes from the doctrinaire right-wingers, but the Government are absolutely thirled to changing things. They are obsessed with change. They want to alter what has been accepted—in some cases on a bipartisan basis —for years as being the best thing in this country. As a result of those constant changes, there is greater confusion in the public and among employers. Mistakes are much more likely to be made. My hon. Friend the Member for Withington made that point extremely well. When those mistakes are made, it is the employees in particular who suffer.
For all those reasons, I am infuriated that we have not had an opportunity to discuss those points in Standing Committee. I have telegraphed my comments because I know that we have a time limit—

Mr. John Home Robertson: No, my hon. Friend has telescoped them.

Mr. Foulkes: Indeed. I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That shows the advantage of a good English public school education. I hope that Hansard will be able to sort all this out. Let us go back 60 seconds. I have telescoped my comments today because I know that some of my colleagues are eager to participate in the debate.
If we had been upstairs in Committee, I would have been able to amplify my comments more and we could have dealt with some of the problems and potential pitfalls. With regard to those potential pitfalls, I have total sympathy, concern and worry for the individual employees and employers who will suffer. If those pitfalls mean that the Secretary of State will once again face court action, I will rejoice and I am sure that most hon. Members will, too.

Mr. Flynn: Many of us have been around this course before. We had a gallop in respect of statutory sick pay in 1991. The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People was present at that debate as he is today and as he has been on many other occasions. We all feel affection for him. His lugubrious and sad aspect reminds me of a remark by an American writer about someone having the guilty look of a vulture who had stolen the wrong eyeball. The Minister of State is the soft man when compared with the hard man.
The hard man image is put on at the Nuremburg-style rallies which the Conservatives hold once a year. At those events, Secretaries of State rant insanely and make the most outrageous statements. They give silly lists and sing songs about what they are going to do and how they are going to find new victims and scapegoats every month of the year to blame for all our ills. However, all that is forgotten by the next year and something else comes along.
The Minister of State is a man of conscience and sensibility. He performs his sad task with a guilty air. However, it is probably better that the Minister of State does that than someone else. The Minister of State fulfils a function similar to that performed in Wales by the Minister of State, Welsh Office, the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts). The latter Minister of State had the distinction for some time as being the only member of the Tory party in Wales representing Wales who spoke both English and Welsh.
The Minister of State, Welsh Office, has the same air of wistful sadness about him as the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People. I am sure that the Minister of State, Department of Social Security brings to his duties that same burden of guilt as he has borne since he left the job that he loved in Northern Ireland.
When we consider what happened in 1991, this is a story of deja vu and "I told you so." In 1991, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) made it clear what was likely to happen. At the time, we were talking about only a small reduction to 80 per cent. The CBI made a submission and referred to the measure as
a fundamental breach of the partnership agreement between state and employers delivering a vital social security benefit.


That has such an old-fashioned ring now. The Government have descended even further from the position in 1991.
Let us consider the national insurance scheme and what we have done to it. Lloyd George introduced that scheme and said that people would be given ninepence for fourpence. That was a very good bargain because the state was going to put the extra money into the scheme. It was regarded as a very civilising, advanced measure. We then had people who could think only in monetary terms and balance sheets.
In 1942, Beveridge said that the reason for introducing a national insurance scheme was that, in respect of the insurance that most of our parents had, which was industrial insurance—people came to the door and collected money—half the contributions were lost in the collection and salesmanship of the scheme. We are in precisely the same position now. The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), who is not always perfect in his views, in his publication called "An Age of Entitlement", has nailed the main fallacy of the Government's policy.
During the Division, I had an opportunity to talk to one of the Ministers who spoke to the Treasury Select Committee yesterday. I said that the nonsense is that the Government are telling us that the pensions that were paid in 1948—a time of great poverty, when things were very difficult—were of greater value then in real terms than they are now. They are also telling us that pensions paid out of the national insurance scheme in 40 years' time, when we will be far richer than we are now, will be less than are paid now. Their excuse is demographic change.
I do not apologise for giving the hon. Member for Havant extra publicity for his pamphlet, and my constituency will not receive the £1,000 which three Conservative Members' constituencies will receive after they took part in a publicity stunt for a commercial firm today. The hon. Gentleman's document makes it clear that the demographic change will be far less than anyone is expecting; it will last only for the time that the baby boomers are retiring, a very short period of 10 to 13 years, and then it will be over; it will be a temporary blip; and it should not skew our policies entirely in the way that the Government are saying.
I do not want to destroy the hon. Gentleman's career any more than we have done already, but I am sure that it will affect his career prospects. That man, who is known to be an acute observer of social affairs, has said that the Government have deliberately used and exaggerated demographic change to push their ideological wish in order to take money from a nationally provided insurance scheme and push it to the private sector.

Mr. Dewar: Has my hon. Friend noted the report published today by the Social Security Advisory Committee, which is the official watchdog appointed by the Government? It dealt with the related matter of the Government's theory that the whole budget of the welfare state is out of control and strongly dissented from that, suggesting that it was possible to sustain that theory only if we took the most gloomy view of the economic prospects of the country.

Mr. Flynn: That is absolutely correct. The insurance scheme is part of that. If we look at what has happened to the national insurance scheme under the Government, we

will see an enormous increase from 6·5 per cent. in 1979 to 10 per cent.—a 50 per cent. increase in contributions. That is unprecedented. One need not continue that for the next 40 years; one need only continue about a third of that and one could give pensions that represent 40 per cent. of final salary. We could do that not by ruining the economy but by enriching the national insurance scheme and changing it in many ways according to the growth that is likely to take place.
In their 14 years in office, the Government have increased national insurance contributions by a far higher rate than would be necessary to maintain the population throughout the next century, with the kind of pensions—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is on to tomorrow's debate. I ask him to return to clause 1.

Mr. Flynn: A few months ago, I had the pleasure of speaking at a seminar organised by the civil service college for civil servants in Wales who suffer from severe disabilities. Many are wheelchair-bound or blind or profoundly deaf. It is a great credit to the Welsh Office that those talented people are doing productive jobs, but there are nothing like enough of them. The Welsh Office has not got anywhere near its quota, but it was an encouraging experience to meet the group.
9.45 pm
One problem is the perception of the capabilities of the disabled. We know that people with severe disabilities have a better record of attendance at work than able-bodied people. I also know that a civil servant who was severely disabled and in a wheelchair could not get into the civil servants' Box in the Chamber. That is a serious bar to their promotion. I know that disabled people find it difficult to get into Committee Rooms in the House—that is, if they have the correct passes, and so on. Those are practical difficulties which are in their way.
When the debate took place in 1991, the fears of the groups representing disabled people were made clear. It was said then, and it was denied by the Minister of State sitting before us tonight, that it would have an effect. We now know from objective evidence that the cut from 100 per cent. to 80 per cent. has had an effect. The CAB has made it clear that that is what is happening and it has given several examples of what will happen in the future.
The Minister of State has a distinguished record of helping the disabled and there is no questioning his sincerity. There is a question, however, about the results in the areas in which he is working and where achievements have been made. There is no question that the Minister of State, who is also Minister with responsibility for the disabled, is sincerely trying to help the disabled. All the cases that have been quoted—I do not want to repeat them because they were mentioned in the document from the CAB—make that point.
In the previous debate, claims were made that many companies provided alternative sick pay schemes and a report from the Institute of Fiscal Studies was brought in to support that. The report showed that the coverage was given usually for short-term sickness and that only a tiny proportion of companies would provide sick pay cover if someone was away for a longer period.
The Government, as in so many other matters, are taking away an efficient national scheme, which is cheap to


run and to administer and replacing it with a highly inefficient and administratively top-heavy series of schemes that will provide poor service. We know what is going to happen. People will have an incentive to stay on in work and to risk their health when they are ill.
There are differences in the time people spend off work in different parts of the country because of sickness, and we know the reasons for that. Some hon. Members will know of people who have been crippled by their jobs, and yet have continued in them. We know of people who have been poisoned, deafened and had their lungs destroyed by their jobs. Those people take more days off sick because they are being killed slowly by the occupations that they follow. That continues into old age and into retirement, and there are differences which relate to the geography of the country.
This legislation is mean-minded, and it comes from a Government who have run out of ideas. The Government are vindictive and they are out to punish what they see as scapegoats. They want someone to blame. A person who is sick is clearly idling or malingering—that is the Government's view. They have a new scapegoat every month, be it single mothers or whoever. They have to have someone to blame and they know that the popular and tabloid culture might well go along with them. There is a quarry of popular support which the Government can use to chase the scapegoats and to give them a bad name, and that is what they are doing in this case.
The Government are turning our civilisation back. They are going beyond what the thinking was when this scheme was introduced, not long ago, in 1983. They are going way beyond what happened in 1942 when Beveridge brought out his report. The report received all-party support and those involved wanted to build a society that was more efficient, more kind and more just. This legislation is a retreat from all that.

Mr. Home Robertson: I apologise for missing the opening speeches. I was working at my desk when saw the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) on the monitor and I could not resist the debate. It is quite like old times for my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley and myself to be supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar).
The Secretary of State has left the Chamber. He has no staying power. Perhaps his PPS could pass on the message that my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden has driven several Secretaries of State for Scotland to distraction, and there is every chance that the present Secretary of State for Social Security could well go the same way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Flynn) referred to that famous nauseating speech by the Secretary of State for Social Security at the Conservative party conference about all the people who are clamouring to come to Britain as it is a land flowing with milk and honey and benefits. That rather squalid speech left out the Italian who came here inquiring,
dov'e il mafioso con la faccia di bambino?
That meant, "Which one is the Secretary of State for Social Security?"
Perhaps I should declare an interest as an employer. I am happy to see the exclusion affecting small employers' relief. As a small employer on a farm, I may escape the strictures.

Mr. Dewar: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I should point out that he is falling into the trap laid by the Government. He is assuming that, because there is small firms relief, he will benefit. I am sure that my hon. Friend will accept that many small employers will not be all right.
The National Farmers Union has written to us explaining that the measure may hit small farmers, particularly those who pay more than the minimum agricultural wages. They are likely to be prejudiced. The NFU is strongly opposed to the changes in small firms relief.

Mr. Home Robertson: I am glad to hear that my subscription to the National Farmers Union for Scotland is not wasted. I am horrified to think that there are any farmers who do not pay more than the basic minimum agricultural wage and even more horrified that the Government are planning to scrap the agricultural wages board as that will take the bottom out of the market. I have no doubt that a number of small and medium-sized rural and urban businesses will be adversely affected by the clause.
We all know from constituency experience and dealings with businesses which run into difficulties what a risky business it can be to employ people. In the present climate, surely it is necessary to encourage firms to employ people. Yet here we are debating legislation which represents an employment tax when there should be employment incentives.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley said, this raises particular concern about the employment of some of the more vulnerable people such as disabled people and those who suffer from sickness.
If employers on the brink have to consider dismissing people who are persistently sick because they have the banks on their backs as well as the Secretary of State for Social Security, it will put extra stress on those with sickness in their families. People with all the financial commitments loaded on by the Government—interest rates, mortgage payments, hire purchase and other debts —could end up without work because their employers find it is too risky to keep them on due to repeated incidence of sickness which are clearly no fault of the individual.
The same point can be made about employing the disabled. Every cloud is supposed to have a silver lining and there may be circumstances in which employers think it advisable not to employ smokers. That would be a good thing. I say that in the presence of my hon. friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) and no doubt he will see me later. Seriously, that is a diabolical discrimination and it could do great damage to many individuals and small employers.
I am worried by not only the direct application but the principle behind the state unloading responsibility and liability for basic social policy. Employers will have to insure against the risk and meet the administrative cost of doing so. They will have to find other ways of protecting themselves from the risks that flow from clause 1. I imagine that insurance companies will require employers entering such policies to vet potential employees carefully. There will be no question of employing the disabled and that must be bad news. I am not surprised that the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People was looking at his boots just now—

Mr. Flynn: He was looking at his watch.

Mr. Home Robertson: I do not care what he was looking at. The right hon. Gentleman has a reputation for being a comparatively civilised character, yet he is acting on behalf of the absent mafioso—I mean the Secretary of State—in enacting legislation that will have a vicious effect on all employers and many employees. He has a lot of explaining to do.

Mr. Dewar: I will briefly speak on a couple of minor points, because I know that the Minister is anxious to address the Committee in the next minute or two. It may help if I add to the short list of points that the Minister might answer. I will not delay the Committeee long.
I am delighted that the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security is back with us. I learned today not to produce a metaphor in a speech, because the hon. Gentleman seized on it like a terrier seizing a bone and chased it around the Chamber in a fierce manner for a considerable time. I thought that he was transported back to the days when he was a prodigy at Conservative party conferences, but I know that he wants to forget them.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Flynn) on his metaphors. We use them carelessly sometimes, but vultures and scapegoats go together. If a scapegoat is tethered it is extremely likely that vultures will gather round. That possibly explains why the right hon. Gentleman perches in the Department for Social Security as elegantly, persistently and patiently as he does. Clearly the scapegoats are taking a long time to die. We should be grateful.
It is clear that the essence of the Government's case has nothing to do with the £1,000 million a week that they must borrow to balance the books, or with getting to grips once and for all with public sector borrowing requirement problems. If there is a case, it is a flimsy one—and relies on the rather cynical view that there cannot be good management without direct financial incentives.
I do not share that view. In saying that, I am not lining up with inefficient management and asking for its continuation in the heart of British industry. The opposite is true. I have much sympathy—and it is not often that this will be said—with the speech of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring), to the extent that he produced a substantial list of remarkable British industry success stories, particularly from the motor industry, and pointed to radical and dramatic changes in the atmosphere in those firms which reflects a sharp and welcome decline in absenteeism because of ill health and other causes.
I absolutely accept that that is something that we want and that it is something that British management should be tackling. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring) argued that good management is tackling that and succeeding, but they are doing so without the so-called advantages of clause 1 being on the statute book.
Therefore, I understand the Government's argument, but my understanding it does not mean that I accept it. I genuinely do not think that the case has been made out for the massive reorganisation and restructuring of the system, or for the massive transfer out of the public sector into the private sector. Without it British management will never get off the proverbial backside—and I use that as a figure of speech.

It being Ten o'clock, THE FIRST DEPUTY CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, the Motion relating to Social Security (Contributions) Bill [Ways and Means] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Patnick.]

The House divided: Ayes 302, Noes 261.

Orders of the Day — Statutory Sick Pay Bill

Again considered in Committee.

Question again proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Dewar: Before the interruption I was making one or two short points, and I do not intend to prolong them, but perhaps it is worth reminding those who were here then that I was praising the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds for the quality of his argument, but disagreeing with his conclusions. There is still time to put the matter right before we vote on clause stand part, but my brief message to Ministers is that no substantial case has yet been made to persuade us that the Bill should be supported or given a fair wind.
I shall briefly mention a couple of other specific matters. Regulations under the clause will be introduced at some point, and it is easy to miss the introduction of regulations in the House. As the Committee will know, to some extent we are in the hands of the Government. If I remember rightly, the regulations will be made under the negative resolution procedure, so we shall have to pray against them. In such cases we are not even guaranteed a debate —I am delighted to see that the Leader of the House is again loyally in his place to listen to the debate.
I am sure that the Minister of State will give us an assurance that he will use his good offices, although I realise that the matter is not entirely in his gift, to try to ensure that if there are prayers against any such orders—I promise him that there will be—there will be a debate, preferably on the Floor of the House.
It is not a partisan argument to say that we are being offered a package deal, and that the offset arrangements will be crucial. We have a breathing space between now and the introduction of the regulations, during which we can pursue the arguments not only with Ministers but with many of the interest groups involved. I suspect that the citizens advice bureaux and several of the welfare organisations will want to enter the lists.
I admit that we have all been doing a textual job on the nuances of what the CBI said, and what lay behind the typescript, but I am not always greatly enthused when someone says that their support for me amounts to a decision not to oppose me. That is probably a significant cooling, compared with the CBI's normal approach.
If there is a debate on the regulations, and it is held on the Floor of the House, no doubt the organisations themselves will have time to consult their members. I may regret my request; those organisations may even offer the Government warmer support, but at least the situation will have been clarified. Not only will we be able to measure their attitude to the Bill, but they may give us more clarification about the caveats, and about the reassurances that they want. It is not worth while for me to press the Minister too far, because I suspect that he is a prisoner of convention. He is a man of discretion, and I doubt whether he will kick over the traces.
As I said earlier, what worries the organisations is the thought that the Secretary of State, or the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, may have his way, and the big transfer will continue.
The Statutory Sick Pay Act 1991 got off to a standing start, we have suddenly seen the pace quicken with this Bill and we shall suddenly go down the road with the brakes off


and the whole thing will be out of control. We need more clarification and more expert opinion in that area, as well on the subject of national insurance contributions.
Will the Minister say when the regulations are likely to appear? Presumably it will be well before April. After all, we are told that it is absolutely essential that we get the Bill through in the draconian fashion that has been chosen, because April approacheth and all sorts of preparations must be made. Presumably the same argument applies to the adjustments to employers' contributions and, therefore, I presume, we may begin anxiously looking for those regulations shortly after the turn of the year in January.
I know that the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) was trying to be helpful by saying that the fears that I was suggesting—not endorsing —may arise over the change in the point at which entitlement of statutory sick pay ends and that my fears over the translation from retirement age to 65 were not well grounded. I am happy to accept his word and I hope that it is true. When the Minister replies, perhaps he will say something about the cost of that change.
In the financial memorandum, if I remember correctly, the cost to employers of that change in retirement age is estimated at about £10 million. That strikes me as a small sum, but it may reflect the fact that we expect fewer women between the age of 60 and 65 to be drawing retirement pension and statutory sick pay. That estimate lasts until 2020. One of the most extraordinary changes that we have seen in the labour market and in social practice has been the way in which women have become economically active. It is a welcome development. About 45 or 46 per cent. of the work force are women and in a number of areas —my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) will be interested to know that Lothian is one of them—such as the Borders, which is good Liberal territory at the moment, the majority of the work force are women.
I expect that revolution to continue. If £10 million is the current estimate, is there any projection of that figure into the next century towards 2020? How will that affect the rather proud claim of the Minister that the offset makes the package better than neutral? I am not sure that that claim will hold, as I made clear at the beginning. Over the next 27 years, because of inflation, or because of the social change, there may be a real escalation in that figure. It may not be of interest to the Committee, but it is to me.
The Minister should also clear up the vexed question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), who has temporarily left the Committee and who talked as a small employer in the field of agriculture. Perhaps "the field of agriculture" is an unfortunate turn of phrase.
There has been a lot of talk about Peking flu. The Secretary of State cracked a little joke, picking up the Foreign Secretary's admonishment of those precious enough to try to pronounce Beijing in a Chinese accent. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) has travelled there on many occasions and knows the correct pronunciation. Like the Secretary of State, I will settle for Peking.
If an employer has a very small work force who are struck down by Peking flu or some other disaster, it can have substantial financial consequences in terms of statutory sick pay. It is a little like the old argument, with

which Ministers will be familiar, about the effect on small firms of responsibility for maternity leave when a key employee cannot be replaced from the existing work force.
The Committee would appreciate a word or two about the stresses and strains on small firms, given the fact that about 75 to 80 per cent. of statutory sick pay relates to loss of work in the initial four-week period and must, therefore, be met entirely by the small firms. As the Committee will know, at present it is a six-week period and firms pay 20 per cent., if I remember rightly. It is now to be four weeks, but it is surprising how little difference in lost time the extension of four to six weeks makes. The vast majority of cases will still fall within that period and will have to be met entirely by the small firms. Before we move on, the Minister should make an effort to reassure us on that point.
I cannot resist saying that the Peking flu has been dramatically if rather quaintly illustrated in the life of the House of Commons in the past week or two to the hon. Members who have examined the beautifully printed letter from the manufacturer of the House of Commons mints, explaining that more than one third of its work force has been struck by the Peking flu. The supply of mints—not that to hon. Members but to those who are the ultimate recipients of the mint road that leads back to most of our constituencies—will therefore be badly affected. That struck me as a rather homely metaphor for the type of problem that can hit an aristocratic, but, I suspect, comparatively small firm with whose products at least we are all tremendously familiar. The Minister should deal with such matters because they warrant his attention.
I conclude, because I believe that one or two hon. Members wish to speak. I assure you, Mr. Lofthouse, that I shall not intervene again in the clause stand part debate. My closing point is that I do not feel especially partisan in arguing the case as I have done.
There are occasions when I have the impression that I am on the front line in a trench on the Somme in about 1916 and probably as likely to make progress. On this occasion, however, I do not feel like that, because I know that many Conservative Members—perhaps those who are not in the Chamber now, although I know that they exist—are very worried about the principle that was established in 1990 and that they will certainly not like the way in which it has been extended.
I have already mentioned quotations from the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) and, above all, the hon. Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) who, to be fair, has a distinguished record of independence of thought on Europe, which I am sure has the complete approval of the Secretary of State for Social Security. I suspect that his thinking has in no way displeased the Secretary of State who, I hope, will consider equally favourably the worries about what happened in 1990, which were so robustly expressed by the hon. Member for Beverley. Of course, the hon. Gentleman understimated the energy with which the Secretary of State would continue the demolition exercise on the state's responsibility for statutory sick pay.
A further quotation that happens to come to hand is that from the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) who said:
The companies in my constituency are worried because the principle that the Government should reimburse companies 100 per cent. has been broken.


At that time, we were reducing the reimbursement rate from 100 per cent. to 80 per cent. He explained, beyond argument, that the principle of 100 per cent. reimbursement was being broken. He said:
Companies pay the costs of administration and they are perfectly happy to do so"—
I am not sure about that—
but 100 per cent. reimbursement is necessary because the principle is that companies are not in control of sickness—they do not cause their employees' sickness."—[Official Report, 26 November 1990; Vol. 181, c. 668.]
10.30 pm
I deliberately read out that extract because it reflects one of the important subjects of debate and dispute between us. I could have quoted the words of Conservative Members who merely condemn what the Bill stands for, but the hon. Member for Newark has expressed a view that I believe Ministers contest. The essence of the Government's case is that employers can do something about the sickness of their employees. If employers are brutal, they can get rid of their sick employees. Employers could buy flu vaccine on

a massive scale, as one Minister suggested earlier. The general thrust of the argument was that vaccine manufacturers might be one of the few growth sectors in the British economy.
I accept that good employers can do something to help the problem of sickness at work. I do not accept that they need the reform to galvanise themselves into action. Even though improvement is possible, the hon. Member for Newark is right to say that many of the problems are not created by or in the control of the employer. Different health statistics in different parts of the country are largely related to economic depravation, as well as other factors. If one operates in a community that has been victimised by economic history and circumstance, it is difficult to establish the sort of savings envisaged by Ministers who advocate the clause.
For a variety of reasons, I do not believe that the onus of proof has been discharged by those on whom it lies. Unless the Minister of State can do much more, in his patient and careful way, to remove our doubts, the clause will not measure up to the standards that the House of Commons should apply when making a judgment on what should be allowed to pass on to the statute book.

Mr. Terry Rooney: I have listened to the debate and read the documentation on the Bill that the Government have published, and the calculations on the cost—or in this case benefit—to industry are different from those submitted with the Statutory Sick Pay Act 1991. It was then suggested that there would be a cost to industy of £100 million. There seems to be a gap of about £300 million. Perhaps the Ministers can have a quick chat while they are sitting next to each other and find out where the difference in the calculations occurs.
It is being suggested that employers can improve their employees' absence record by better management techniques, but it is also being suggested that the reduction in the period to four weeks for 100 per cent. compensation for small employers will benefit them. The two suggestions are contradictory. In the past three years of deep recession, large employers may have tolerated higher sickness levels because they were a means of coping with a decrease in production requirements, but exactly the opposite is true of small employers.
In the food industry, where it is vital for people to have 100 per cent. good health, the incentive to small employers should be to ensure that their employees stay off work for the maximum period necessary to allow them to recover. Sick employees must not be allowed to affect the food production. Environmental health officers would have much to say about any pressure being placed on management to ensure that sick employees in the food industry return to work too quickly.
The impact of the Bill will vary according to the size of the employer and the way in which the employer operates. Large employers such as banks, with, say 100 people per branch, may be able to cope with any level of absence for a short period, whereas firms engaged in a continuous process cannot cope with anyone being off work. The Bill will have different impacts on different sections of the economy.
Let me cite one industry in what is still classed as our manufacturing sector. Some 25,000 companies in Britain are engaged in the printing industry, which is the third largest employer among those constituting our declining manufacturing base. Of those 25,000 companies, some 200 have more than 1,000 employees, and 19,500 have fewer than 10 employees. Those small firms are engaged in a continuous process—if the employees are not there. the work simply does not get done and cannot be left to somebody else. What will be the impact of the Bill for such employers? They will not only be worse off to the tune of 80 per cent. of the costs of statutory sick pay for the first four weeks; they will also incur in full the additional burden of having to take on temporary employees—usually through agencies and usually at premium rates of pay.
One of the problems that we face in dealing with the Bill in such a short time is that we cannot give full consideration and full weight to those issues. Instead, we have to rely on dubious evidence submitted to the Committee by the Secretary of State.
The only other point—[Interruption.] Does my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) want to say something? If so, he should get up and say it. As I was saying—[Interruption.] I have again been interrupted from a sedentary position, Mr. Morris.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. If the hon. Gentleman is lost for words, he should sit down.

Mr. Rooney: Sometimes one's friends are not at one's side, Mr. Morris.
The impact of clause 1 on a given sector, size or class of employer is very difficult to assess.
A further difficulty with primary social security legislation is that its real impact is felt through regulations that appear some months subsequently, and those regulations cannot be amended—only accepted or rejected. We can only speculate—time alone will tell—but it seems to me that errors in the calculations and the falseness of the philosophy behind the Bill will result in an significant cost to business. I note that the business compliance cost assessment contained in the Bill gives no indication of what the cost will be; it refers only to the savings. I think that the cost will be enormous. That will have implications for the employment prospects of people who are currently unemployed. It will also have employment consequences for those of less than perfect health. A little more time should be devoted to that issue.

Mr. Scott: I was amazed by two aspects of the debate. The first was the flood of personal affection that seemed to flow across the House in my direction. The second was much more substantial: I was astonished that the Opposition, who have complained bitterly about the time allocated for the discussion of the Bill, should have thought it necessary to take 15 minutes out to contest the suspension of the 10 o'clock rule. That seems to me to be a rum set of priorities.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) asked about regulations. We estimate that the regulations will be ready to be discussed in February. Of course I will make a commitment in that context. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House was also present while the hon. Gentleman was making that point, and my right hon. Friend and I will stay in touch with the hon. Gentleman on it.
As I listened to the debate, I found it very difficult to detect any arguments that had not already been dealt with by my colleagues on the Front Bench in previous debates, but there are two points that I want to mention briefly. The first relates to the CBI and business reaction to the proposals.
Anyone who has read the CBI's brief knows that it says:
The CBI does not wish to oppose the SSP Bill.
The CBI may make detailed points on behalf of its members, but it does not oppose the Bill. Given the record of Conservative and Labour Administrations, anyone in an organisation of or for people involved in business and commerce would be out of their mind to regard Labour's record as anything other than lamentable. Right up to and including the last Budget, the Government have shown their concern for business, and for small businesses in particular. We have done so most recently with our deregulation drive to lift burdens off the backs of business, and we have more than compensated employers for the costs that they will incur as a result of reductions in national insurance contributions.

Mr. Foulkes: I was one of the hon. Members who said nice things about the Minister, so I am grateful to him for giving way. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said, all the substantive points


that the CBI made were against the Bill, but, because it is a Conservative organisation, it believes that it must be loyal. The Minister of State said that the Government support small businesses and that small businesses support the Bill. He is 100 per cent. wrong, because the Federation of Small Businesses
therefore urges Members of Parliament to reject this Bill".
Even the Minister, despite all his sweet talk and silver tongue, cannot counteract that.

Mr. Scott: What I cannot counteract is the understanding of those who represent small businesses, who, reading the proposed plans for statutory sick pay, were unaware of the generosity of the Government's proposals for national insurance contributions, which have been slanted to help small businesses.

Mr. Flynn: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Scott: No, I shall not give way.
I want to deal with one aspect of the Bill that has been mentioned a number of times and for which I feel a direct responsibility—the employment of people with disabilities. There is no evidence that employers discriminate against disabled people in their employment practices. As at least one Opposition Member acknowledged, the opposite tends to be true: employers are becoming increasingly aware of the skills and abilitiest that disabled people bring to their enterprises. Evidence overwhelmingly shows that disabled people take less time off because of sickness and are more committed to making a contribution to the success of businesses. The experience of the Employers Forum on Disability in encouraging employers to have positive attitudes to the employment of disabled people is spreading widely and is much to be commended.
The hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) briefly mentioned the employment of disabled civil servants. More disabled people are joining the civil service. I recognise the difficulties that this place presents to disabled civil servants. We have commissioned an audit of the Palace of Westminster and its accessibility to disabled people, and the report will be considered by the House authorities in the near future. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Mr. Bradley: I thank the Minister for his assurances about the regulations. We are glad to learn that he will keep the Opposition Front Bench informed of their progress, and that we shall have an opportunity to debate them—on the Floor of the House, I hope.
I find it extraordinary that the Minister should be so sure of the support of small businesses. He is living in the past. There is evidence that small businesses, certainly those in the north-west and Manchester, are turning more and more to Labour and its policies. The fact that the CBI merely said that it did not oppose the Bill is testimony to that. I think that this is the first time that that organisation has not shouted its full support for the Government from the chimney tops; the Government are incredibly complacent if they take any comfort from what it has said on this occasion.
10.45 pm
I am especially saddened and surprised by the Minister's complacency about the position of people with disabilities. He may well be right in saying that when

disabled people are in employment, they are recognised as hard working, diligent and valuable members of the work force; indeed, I cited evidence to support that view. However, with millions of people unemployed, it is now increasingly difficult for anyone to get work. Following these measures, and future measures involving incapacity benefit, fewer people with disabilities will be able to gain employment. I hope that the Minister will think again.
According to Lorna Reith of the Disability Alliance,
we are deeply concerned that making employers take on more of the cost of SSP will make them even more reluctant to employ disabled people. There is substantial evidence available that disabled people face discrimination in the job market. This will only add to their difficulties.
That sums up what the Opposition have been saying.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: What will happen to Remploy, which has an especially high proportion of disabled employees? Will there be special provision for that company, which will inevitably experience more incidence of sickness? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] The company, by its very nature, has a higher proportion of disabled employees.

Mr. Bradley: That is exactly the sort of point that we should have liked to discuss in detail in Standing Committee, had we been given the time. Clearly employers such as Remploy will experience difficulties.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: rose—

Dr. Spink: rose—

Mr. Bradley: I will not give way. I am trying to finish my speech.
Disability organisations throughout the country have overwhelmingly recognised the difficulties that people with disabilities will experience in trying to get into the job market. That is why the Opposition wish to divide the Committee.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I had not intended to speak, but I cannot let what has been said go unchallenged. Opposition Members are confusing sickness with disability. People with disabilities have an outstandingly good record of faithful attendance. Remploy does not have a high degree of sickness. This is outrageous: Opposition Members are impairing disabled people's chances of getting jobs.

Mr. Rooney: For several hours, Ministers have said that there is a very generous settlement for small businesses in respect of the changes proposed in the Bill. Will a Minister confirm to the Committee that small businesses are currently reimbursed 80 per cent. of the cost of statutory sick pay in the first four weeks, but in future they will receive nothing?

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:

The Committee divided: Ayes 297, Noes 226.

Division No. 45]
[10.49 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)


Alexander, Richard
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Banks, Matthew (Southport)


Amess, David
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Arbuthnot, James
Bates, Michael


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Batiste, Spencer


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Bellingham, Henry


Ashby, David
Bendall, Vivian


Aspinwall, Jack
Beresford, Sir Paul






Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gallie, Phil


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Gardiner, Sir George


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Garnier, Edward


Booth, Hartley
Gill, Christopher


Boswell, Tim
Gillan, Cheryl


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bowden, Andrew
Gorst, John


Bowis, John
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Brandreth, Gyles
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Brazier, Julian
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Bright, Graham
Grylls, Sir Michael


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Hague, William


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Budgen, Nicholas
Hannam, Sir John


Burns, Simon
Hargreaves, Andrew


Burt, Alistair
Harris, David


Butcher, John
Haselhurst, Alan


Butler, Peter
Hawkins, Nick


Butterfill, John
Hawksley, Warren


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hayes, Jerry


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Heald, Oliver


Carrington, Matthew
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carttiss, Michael
Hendry, Charles


Cash, William
Hicks, Robert


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Chapman, Sydney
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Churchill, Mr
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Clappison, James
Horam, John


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Coe, Sebastian
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Colvin, Michael
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Congdon, David
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hunter, Andrew


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Jack, Michael


Cormack, Patrick
Jenkin, Bernard


Couchman, James
Jessel, Toby


Cran, James
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Day, Stephen
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Key, Robert


Dickens, Geoffrey
Kilfedder, Sir James


Dicks, Terry
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dorrell, Stephen
Kirkhope, Timothy


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knapman, Roger


Dover, Den
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Duncan, Alan
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Dunn, Bob
Knox, Sir David


Durant, Sir Anthony
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Dykes, Hugh
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Eggar, Tim
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Legg, Barry


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Leigh, Edward


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Evennett, David
Lidington, David


Fabricant, Michael
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lord, Michael


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Luff, Peter


Fishburn, Dudley
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Forman, Nigel
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
MacKay, Andrew


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Maclean, David


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Madel, David


French, Douglas
Maitland, Lady Olga


Fry, Peter
Malone, Gerald


Gale, Roger
Mans, Keith





Marland, Paul
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Marlow, Tony
Soames, Nicholas


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Speed, Sir Keith


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Spencer, Sir Darek


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mates, Michael
Spink, Dr Robert


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Spring, Richard


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Sproat, Iain


Merchant, Piers
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Milligan, Stephen
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mills, Iain
Steen, Anthony


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Stephen, Michael


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Stern, Michael


Moate, Sir Roger
Stewart, Allan


Monro, Sir Hector
Streeter, Gary


Moss, Malcolm
Sumberg, David


Needham, Richard
Sweeney, Walter


Nelson, Anthony
Sykes, John


Neubert, Sir Michael
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Nicholls, Patrick
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Thomason, Roy


Norris, Steve
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Ottaway, Richard
Thurnham, Peter


Page, Richard
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Paice, James
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Patnick, Irvine
Tracey, Richard


Patten, Rt Hon John
Tredinnick, David


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Trend, Michael


Pawsey, James
Trotter, Neville


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Twinn, Dr Ian


Pickles, Eric
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Viggers, Peter


Porter, David (Waveney)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Walden, George


Powell, William (Corby)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Rathbone, Tim
Waller, Gary


Redwood, Rt Hon John,
Ward, John


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Richards, Rod
Waterson, Nigel


Riddick, Graham
Watts, John


Robathan, Andrew
Wells, Bowen


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Whitney, Ray


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Whittingdale, John


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Widdecombe, Ann


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Willetts, David


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Wilshire, David


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Sackville, Tom
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Wolfson, Mark


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wood, Timothy


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)



Shersby, Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sims, Roger
Mr. Robert G. Hughes and


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Mrs. Derek Conway.


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Adams, Mrs Irene
Bennett, Andrew F.


Ainger, Nick
Benton, Joe


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Berry, Dr. Roger


Allen, Graham
Betts, Clive


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Blair, Tony


Armstrong, Hilary
Blunkett, David


Ashton, Joe
Boateng, Paul


Austin-Walker, John
Boyes, Roland


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Bradley, Keith


Barnes, Harry
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Barron, Kevin
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Battle, John
Burden, Richard


Bayley, Hugh
Byers, Stephen


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Caborn, Richard


Beggs, Roy
Callaghan, Jim


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)






Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Canavan, Dennis
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Cann, Jamie
Janner, Greville


Chisholm, Malcolm
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Clapham, Michael
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Clelland, David
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Jowell, Tessa


Coffey, Ann
Keen, Alan


Cohen, Harry
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Khabra, Piara S.


Corbett, Robin
Kilfoyle, Peter


Corbyn, Jeremy
Leighton, Ron


Corston, Ms Jean
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Cousins, Jim
Lewis, Terry


Cox, Tom
Litherland, Robert


Cryer, Bob
Livingstone, Ken


Cummings, John
Llwyd, Elfyn


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Loyden, Eddie


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
McAllion, John


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
McAvoy, Thomas


Dafis, Cynog
McCartney, Ian


Darling, Alistair
McCrea, Rev William


Davidson, Ian
Macdonald, Calum


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
McKelvey, William


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McLeish, Henry


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
McMaster, Gordon


Denham, John
McWilliam, John


Dewar, Donald
Madden, Max


Dixon, Don
Mahon, Alice


Donohoe, Brian H.
Mandelson, Peter


Dowd, Jim
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Martlew, Eric


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Meacher, Michael


Eagle, Ms Angela
Michael, Alun


Eastham, Ken
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Enright, Derek
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Etherington, Bill
Milburn, Alan


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Miller, Andrew


Fatchett, Derek
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Faulds, Andrew
Morgan, Rhodri


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Morley, Elliot


Fisher, Mark
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Flynn, Paul
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Foulkes, George
Mudie, George


Fraser, John
Mullin, Chris


Gapes, Mike
Murphy, Paul


Garrett, John
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Gerrard, Neil
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
O'Hara, Edward


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Olner, William


Godsiff, Roger
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Golding, Mrs Llin
Parry, Robert


Graham, Thomas
Patchett, Terry


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Pickthall, Colin


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Pike, Peter L.


Grocott, Bruce
Pope, Greg


Gunnell, John
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hall, Mike
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hanson, David
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hardy, Peter
Prescott, John


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Primarolo, Dawn


Heppell, John
Purchase, Ken


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hinchliffe, David
Radice, Giles


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Randall, Stuart


Home Robertson, John
Raynsford, Nick


Hoon, Geoffrey
Redmond, Martin


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Reid, Dr John


Hoyle, Doug
Rendel, David


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rogers, Allan


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Rooney, Terry


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Hutton, John
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Ingram, Adam
Rowlands, Ted





Ruddock, Joan
Tipping, Paddy


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Turner, Dennis


Short, Clare
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Simpson, Alan
Walley, Joan


Skinner, Dennis
Wareing, Robert N


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Watson, Mike


Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Wicks, Malcolm


Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Winnick, David


Snape, Peter
Wise, Audrey


Spearing, Nigel
Worthington, Tony


Spellar, John
Wray, Jimmy


Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Wright, Dr Tony


Steinberg, Gerry
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Stevenson, George



Stott, Roger
Tellers for the Noes:


Strang, Dr. Gavin
Mr. Jack Thompson and


Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)
Mr. Eric Illsley.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

TRANSITIONAL AND OTHER SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS

Mr. Dewar: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in clause 2, page 1, line 18, leave out ", and such savings,".

The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 2, in clause 2, page 1, line 20, leave out from "1" to end of line 22.
No. 3, in clause 2, page 1, line 23, leave out subsection (2).

Mr. Dewar: This is first amendment of the group of amendments which stands in my name and in the names of my hon. Friends.
I approach this amendment perhaps with a little nervousness. Although it is an interesting technical matter which I wish to discuss and to probe, I am aware that in the rather grand setting of the House of Commons it looks like the work of a barrack-room lawyer.
One of the disadvantages of being on the Floor of the House is that amendments which would generally fit in a Committee upstairs and which would give us a quite interesting few minutes of discussion suddenly seem just a little modest for the space and the stage which they occupy. However, I am not going to be put off. As we are here on the Floor of the House, it is our duty to try to understand what clause 2 is about. I say "try to understand" because it is a technical clause and does not raise the great issues of policy and the great sweeps of principle which clause 1 raises, although there may be the occasional point where they overlap.
The first obvious common ground is that, whatever the clause is about, it relates to regulations which presumably will be made at some future date by the Government and by the present team at the Department of Social Security. The first basic thing to establish is exactly what the regulations are. My hon. Friends, and I suspect a number of Conservative Members, will sympathise with the fact that more and more we are presented with very short Bills. These are effectively one-clause Bills, as we keep being told. However, if one looks closely at the print, one finds that they spawn generation upon generation and tribes and nations of regulations and subsidiary orders. It is extremely difficult for the House to keep track of them. On many occasions, they result in Government by diktat.
I know that some of my colleagues from Northern Ireland have been present during the debate. They have to


deal with interminable orders and almost no primary legislation. They must be at a considerable disadvantage in terms of the role of scrutiny which falls to the House.
I make no apologies for saying that, when I read clauses such as clause 2, little alarm bells start ringing, my antennae start bristling and I wonder whether I am being taken for a ride by the Executive and the legislature is being bypassed. [Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) says so eloquently, "Again."
The first and really important question I want to ask the Minister is whether he will define the regulations and the occasions to which they apply. It is not as simple as it sounds; it never is in this place. I want to get it absolutely clear in my mind.
Can I assume that the regulations to which clause 2 refers are not the offsetting regulations dealing with the reduction in employers' national insurance contributions and which are an important part of the package? That must be so per se, but it is important to lay the ground rules before we get down to the nitty gritty of the argument.
I imagine that the national insurance contribution rule changes will be in another thicket of legislation which, genealogically can be traced back to totally different primary legislation. If we tried to trace all the measures, we would be left with a legislative family tree resembling that of the Hapsburg family, with so many roots and branches that it would be almost impossible to know where one was going.
Having established, with the helpful nod of the Minister who is anxious to make progress, that we are not talking about the offsetting regulations, what regulations are we discussing? We cannot define them by exclusion; we would have to go a long way round the houses to do that. We are looking for a positive definition and explanation from the Minister.
I asked in particular about the words "and such savings". What particular savings are they? To define that, it is important to look at the words "transitional and consequential provision", which are interlinked by a comma of some significance.
The Bill refers to
such transitional and consequential provisions, and such savings, as he considers necessary or expedient".
I am interested to know what the transitional regulations would be.
When I think of transitional regulations, I think of financial buffers that are built in when a change is so sharp that it is unreasonable to expect people to put up with the costs. I think particularly of finance or the poll tax. I shall not talk about that, but hon. Members may remember that an endless series of transitional arrangements were laid before the House as the Government tried in vain to buy peace on that contentious issue.
Perhaps more relevant to the debate, as they refer to the DSS, are the transitional arrangements for the Child Support Agency which involve a phasing arrangement in the first year. I shall not go into the detail of the financial cut off, but that is an example of transitional or phasing arrangements to protect a small group of people who have been paying money under a court order and facing an increase of more than £20 but less than £60 a week. That is a good example of the transitional arrangements that comes to mind.
Am I far off the beam? Are we talking about that kind of transitional financial buffer? If so, in what

circumstances would it apply in the context of the measure that we are invited to enact in clause 1? We want to get at the essence of the word "transitional".
Similar questions arise in respect of consequential provisions. I suppose that they are consequential on the change to clause 1—there cannot be anything else from which the consequence could spring. I invite the Minister to clarify the situation. The word "consequential" has a broad definition. My first thought—the Minister will be able to say whether I am far off the track—was that "consequential" might relate to clause 1 and a continuation of the kind of variation on the rate of rebate that began with the 1992 Act.
The reason for my puzzlement is that there cannot be any further downward consequential movement because the rebate has reached nought per cent. Not even this Government could operate a negative rate of rebate, where the unfortunate employer would have to pay something as a bounty to the Department of Social Security. That would be going too far. I hope that the Minister will rule that out.
Earlier, I quoted the hon. Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) who said that it was unlikely in his view—and how right he was—that the 80 per cent. rebate would rise rather than fall. It does not seem that the consequential regulations deal with the rate of rebate or its disappearance. It is important that the Minister gives some idea of what is transitional and what is consequential, and what savings are meant by the words "and such savings" in clause 2(1).
I take that matter seriously because I know that the Minister is keen on savings. They are one of the Government's principal obsessions. I note that they are keen on making savings at the expense of others rather than at their own. In any event, I am always suspicious when the words "and such savings" cross my course.
We know that administrative costs fall on industry, and some will still fall on the Department as a result of the system. For example, small business relief will remain, and that will involve paperwork and administration of one sort or another. Will savings be made by cutting that expense by further abolitions, trimmings or restrictions of small business relief—or, worse still, by telling businesses, "We expect you to meet the cost of savings to us"? Is that a possibility under clause 2? I hope that those points are reasonably connected and logical and that the Minister will be able to help.
The second amendment in the group refers to a longer proposed excision in clause 2(1), to remove the words
or the operation of any enactment repealed or amended by that section during any period when the repeal or amendment is not wholly in force.
I must confess that as I get older I find the words, the wonders, the subtleties and the complexities of the legal draftsmen the harder to follow. I suppose it is because I am more and more of a refugee from the law. It is many years since I opened a law book in anger —or for money, which is perhaps more relevant. I am therefore perhaps struggling somewhere behind the pace when it comes to the textual analysis of those words which I am trying to remove—or which I am suggesting might be removed, because my views on the matter are not yet definite—from that part of the Bill. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to help me.


11.15 pm
The problem is that the regulations coming into force are:
the provisions of section 1 or the operation of any enactment repealed or amended by that section"—
that is, clause 1 of the Bill—
during any period when the repeal or amendment is not wholly in force.
Quite a substantial point arises, in which I want to engage the Minister. I was going to say that I hope that he will try and follow me. I was not suggesting any fault on his part. It may be simply that my explanation is not as clear as I would want it to be, but I will do my best.
I am sure that the Minister has a copy of the Bill in front of him. Clause 1, which is what we are concerned with, says:
the operation of any enactment repealed or amended".
That means that we must be referring, by definition, to section 158(1)(a) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman said clause 1; he is reading clause 2, I think, if I may say so.

Mr. Dewar: The hon. Lady may say what she likes, but I am referring to clause 1. I am afraid that she has not followed my argument and it may be my fault. [HON. MEMBERS: "Start again."] No; I am not starting again. This is a point that I am genuinely curious about so let me try and develop it. Clause 2, to which the amendment has been tabled, refers to
operation of any enactment repealed or amended by that section"—
that is, section 1. Therefore, when we consider what it applies to—the amendments or repeals—we have to go back to section 1 to find the candidates. That is absolutely clear. It is section 1. If the hon. Lady goes back to section 1 she will see that the list of candidates is comparatively short.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Secton 1 or clause 1?

Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman, the name of whose constituency escapes me, makes a fair point.

Mr. Dickens: Littleborough and Saddleworth.

Mr. Dewar: I resist the temptation to ask where that is, but there is a danger of becoming frivolous. I want to follow the point through and I am distracting myself.
The hon. Member makes a fair point. I am of course referring to clause 1 in that context, but a minute or two ago I referred to section 1. As this is referred to in the text of the Bill, it is of course section 1, because it is written on the assumption that it will become an Act. Therefore there is a slight confusion because we are discussing this as though in a prism; it is at different levels and it is therefore easy to slip between the levels and, I quite understand, confuse the hon. Gentleman.
The list of candidates for appeal or enactment is, as I said, short. Obviously, the main and most important candidate is section 158(1)(a) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. The bit that I am trying to excise from clause 2 refers to the repeal or amendment of that section
during any period when the repeal or amendment is not wholly in force.

I take it, and I may be wrong, that that cannot apply to section 158(1)(a) of the 1992 Act because clause 1 goes on to say that that section
shall cease to have effect.
If, once the Bill is enacted, that clause ceases to have effect it clearly cannot be a candidate for something that refers to its appeal or amendment during any period when that appeal or amendment is not wholly in force.
Surely, if something ceases to have effect, to use a shorthand of politics, it dies at a stroke immediately the Act is brought into being. Therefore, it cannot be what is referred to when we are talking about a
period when the repeal or amendment is not wholly in force.
That is an incompatibility. To put it in good lay language, "It doesn't fit."
I am perfectly prepared to listen to what the Minister has to say on the matter and he may be able to persuade me otherwise, but I deduce that section 158(1)(a) of the 1992 Act is not a candidate. It must be taken off the list as it does not meet the test, or fit into the jigsaw of the complex patterns that are wrought by the draftsmen in clause 2 of the Bill.
I want to be fair, however, and there are other—although minor—possibilities. Clause 1(2) refers to
section 81(2) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992
and
paragraph 2 of Schedule 11 to the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992".
I do not think that it can mean section 81(2) of the 1992 Act because that is very narrow in its terms, if I remember rightly, and is also not likely to meet the requirement that it might be hanging around, not wholly in force, half in and half out, like a ghost in the legislative corridors. Section 81(2) does not fit that bill, as I think that hon. Members in the Committee who remember it will agree.
We may therefore be reduced to paragraph 2 of schedule 11 to the 1992 Act, which refers to
circumstances in which entitlement to statutory sick pay does not arise
and the switch from "over pensionable age" to "over the age of 65". In a sense, that seems to be the most plausible of the candidates, but it is a very narrow issue, which is peripheral to the main thrust of clause 1.
Although I am always open to guidance, I am in some doubt about whether the words that I have suggested that we should excise in amendment No. 2 should go on the basis that they are not really needed. If I am right in my detective story and paragraph 2 of schedule 11 is the only appeal or amendment to which the clause can refer, perhaps the Minister can tell us in what circumstances that could arise.
It is a simple concept. At some date, entitlement to statutory sick pay, which at the moment is available to women before the age of 60—assuming that they pass all the other tests and criteria such as availability for work and so forth—and for men up to the age of 65, will change. As I understand it, it is not like the phasing in of the arrangements for the retirement age under the state pension scheme. The change will be introduced immédiatement—perhaps I am being unfair to those above in the Press Gallery. It will come into force suddenly; instead of 60 and 65 we will have 65 and that will be the end of the matter.
If I am right, I again do not understand how it meets the test of a
period when the repeal or amendment is not wholly in force.


I hope that I have not in any way confused the Committee with those few remarks, but those genuinely innocent-looking amendments repay some examination. The more we look at them, the more we come to the conclusion that there are matters at stake which should be clarified before we move on.
Obviously, I shall listen carefully to what the Minister has to say. It may be that I will want to speak again when I have heard his explanation. Some of my hon. Friends may also want to participate in the discussion. [Interruption.] I can assure the Leader of the House—once again I congratulate him on coming back to the Chamber—that I have every intention of properly exhausting this issue. I intend to do my job conscientiously.
Another matter that I should mention, simply for completeness and because it is involved in this group of amendments, is amendment No. 3, which deals with a suggestion that we leave out subsection (2). I suppose it should really be sub-clause (2) in view of the strictures that we heard earlier on this matter.
I do not intend to advance any complex arguments on this matter. I will perhaps do something that is very unfair; I will simply read subsection (2) to the Committee.

Mr. Newton: Three times?

Mr. Dewar: No, just once. I will then invite the Minister to explain the provision to us, because it is a peculiarly obscure offering.
Subsection (2) states: "Section 175(2) to" 175(4)—I am interpolating that to make it clearer—
of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (general provisions as to regulations and orders) apply in relation to the power conferred by subsection (1) above as they apply in relation to a power conferred by that Act to make regulations.
For the life of me, I am not clear what that means. Of course, that is a fault on my part. If hon. Members are ignorant and recognise that their powers of comprehension are letting them down, the best thing to do on occasions like this is to make a virtue of it.
I suspect—I may be totally wrong—that some hon. Members may be suffering from the same inability and frustrations as me. I know that the Minister, who has been well briefed by his men and women of skill and expertise, will have mastered this before he came into the debate and therefore should be able, without too much trouble, to guide us through the intricacies.
I think I know what section 175 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 is about, although it is very general in its message. But I am not at all clear about
subsection (1) above as they apply in relation to a power conferred by that Act to make regulations.
I am not sure how it all fits together. Even if I say it quickly, it does not sound any better.
I am asking the Minister to unravel this—I think "unravel" is the right word. Indeed, I am asking him simply to take us gently through the intricacies to make it all clear. If he can do that, he will do a considerable service to the Committee. I am happy to subside to my bench with a receptive mind and try to follow exactly where the Minister will now lead us. Perhaps from that point the discussion can proceed.

Mr. Home Robertson: The Committee is greatly indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) for drawing our attention to the curious parts of clause 2. Of course, I have now made the

fatal error of reading it. If we cut through the terms of subsection (1) and take out all the qualifications, it could be read as follows:
The Secretary of State may by regulation make … such savings, as he considers necessary or expedient for … the operation of any enactment repealed or amended by that section".

Mr. Flynn: That could mean anything.

Mr. Home Robertson: I feel profoundly uncomfortable at the thought of giving the Secretary of State, who is absent from the Chamber now, powers personally to introduce regulations to enable him to make
such savings, as he considers necessary or expendient
for any purpose whatever.
11.30 pm
In the absence of the Secretary of State, the Minister of State has the opportunity to cut free, and demonstrate that he is the reasonable man we all know he is. My hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden was a little unfair to the Government when he suggested that section 158(1)(a) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 and section 81(2) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 would disappear immediately on enactment of the Bill.
My hon. Friend quoted the words
shall cease to have effect",
and that is what the Bill says, but such things can happen by stages. Perhaps that is why the Government seek the powers under the clause—so as to make it possible to phase in the scheme. The Minister may have some scope for "lifting the burden"—if I may use the Government's terminology—from businesses. Instead of the burden of paying the higher share of statutory sick pay being transferred at a strobe, just like that, to employers, it could be phased in.
No doubt if the Secretary of State were here he would have no truck with that kind of thing. He would want to put the boot in to the employers straight away. But he is not here at this stage of the evening, and the rest of us are all right behind the Minister of State, because we know that he is a reasonable man.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Derek Enright: He is our candidate.

Mr. Home Robertson: My hon. Friend must control himself.
It might be possible to phase in the burden, and if that is what the provision means, it could be useful.

Mr. Scott: Rather than going into the technicalities of the draftsmen's wording of the clause, I shall attempt, as briefly and clearly as I can, to explain the purposes for which the provisions are included in the Bill. As is clear from the Bill, subsection (1) enables the Secretary of State to
make such transitional and consequential provision, and such savings, as he considers necessary or expedient for or in connection with the coming into force
of the substantive provisions of clause 1.

Mr. Enright: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Scott: No, I should like to get on. If the hon. Gentleman listens and there is time left when I have finished, he can come back and ask me questions.
There has been some misunderstanding about the use of the word "savings". I cannot remember whether it was


bells ringing or antennae prickling that the hon. Member for Garscadden described, but as soon as the Opposition see the word "savings" they think that something sinister is going on. However, "savings" in this context have nothing to do with money. The word is a technical term used in legislation; when changes are made and a new scheme or pattern is introduced, anything that one wishes to retain from the previous legislation is called a saving. That is it. There is nothing sinister about it, and it is a sensible provision to include. That is one fox down.
The provisions of subsection (1) are, I am advised, a common feature of social security legislation. The Committee knows that the main thrust of the Bill is to end the right of employers to recover 80 per cent. of the statutory sick pay paid out to their employees from remittances of national insurance contributions. However, we must provide clear guidelines for employers explaining how the change will work in practice on 6 April next year, when the new arrangements come into effect.
It is said that, when Adam and Eve were leaving the garden of Eden in somewhat difficult circumstances, Adam tried to reassure Eve by saying, "We live in an age of transition, my dear." Whether that was any comfort to Eve, I do not know. [Interruption.] This is a state of transition, and few of us like going through stages of transition and change unless they are manifestly beneficial.
We need to be able to tell employers what effect the change will have on the recovery arrangements in respect of those employees who are off work sick and entitled to SSP at about the time of the change. The Government's intention is to enable employers to be able to continue to recover the appropriate amount of SSP paid for days of sickness up to and including 5 April 1994, even if the employer cannot recover that amount until after that date.
Only SSP paid for days of sickness on or after 6 April will be affected by the change in the reimbursement arrangements. That is the sort of provision that industry would expect us to make for the reimbursement arrangements covering the changeover date itself. It follows exactly, and in a similar form of words, the practice adopted in April 1991 when the reimbursement rate was reduced from 100 per cent. to 80 per cent. With the agreement of employers, all SSP due for days immediately before the change was recoverable at 100 per cent. and the reduction to 80 per cent. applied only from 6 April 1991.
It is clear that the powers conferred on the Secretary of State to make regulations relate not only to clause 1(1), which abolishes the 80 per cent. reimbursement arrangements, and—the hon. Gentleman was right—the consequential amendments to section 158(1)(a) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 but also to section 81(2) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, which covers recovery from compensation payments, and the other provisions covering the extension of SSP entitlement to working women over the age of 60. They would all be covered in the transitional provisions. They are clear and practical and have been tested and worked well. We should reject the amendments.
The amendment to delete clause 2(2) would undermine the existing primary legislation contained in section 175(2) to (4) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. It deals with the arrangements under which subordinate legislation in the form of regulations, orders or

schemes is exercisable by the Secretary of State. The provisions are already enshrined in primary legislation and have therefore been agreed by Parliament.
We all take it absolutely for granted—but it must be spelt out somewhere—that orders and regulations have to be exercised by a statutory instrument, to use a technical phrase. The clause that the Opposition want to omit is not new, and is no more sinister than the word "saving" to which I have already referred. It is a regular feature of social security legislation under Governments of both parties, I understand, and it enables the more mundane and non-controversial detail of legislation to be implemented by way of secondary legislation, or statutory instruments.
The amendments have nothing whatever to do with the merits of the proposed changes. We want to ensure that employers can know well in advance the nature and detail of the changes that they will be asked to administer from next April. The amendments would no nothing to assist them in that aim. Employers need clear and comprehensive instructions. Under the Bill, they will know exactly what they will have to do, and I ask the Committee to reject the amendments.

Mr. Dewar: May I first thank the Minister for his courtesy. I found what he had to say genuinely interesting. I shall not pursue the amendment to delete clause 2(2). I did not think that it was sinister; I thought it was impenetrable. I failed to understand it, but the Minister has helped me.
I shall resist the temptation to follow up the Adam and Eve joke made by the Minister of State. I shall certainly not repeat the sotto voce comment of my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) that involved fig leaves and referred to various parts of the Bill.
I have learnt a little from what the Minister said. I liked his explanation of savings. He was right—I was blinkered and was thinking entirely about finance and cash, as I am sure other hon. Members were. It must be something to do with the Thatcher years— perhaps I have become infected. It never occurred to me that there was a homely dressmaking analogy, and that, after the necessary legislation had been cut out, a few fragments would be left that could be put into the rummage bag to be used on another occasion. I believe that that was how the Minister was describing the process.
The fact that something is a common feature is not necessarily a reason for accepting it. If I was in a perverse mood—which I am not—I would try to look through the text again and square what I found there with the elegant explanation that I have been offered. I do not think that doing so would help the Committee; it might entertain me, but that would be a selfish test to apply. I believe that we should let the matter rest.
It may be that suspicious Conservative Members have assumed that we shall press the group of amendments to a Division, but in view of the explanation that we have heard, I do not think that it would be sensible to do so. I realise that it is not my decision and is a matter for the Committee. I shall go one better than advising my right hon. and hon. Friends about what to do. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Dewar: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 29, leave out 'and' and insert 'shall'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 5, in page 2, line 1, leave out from beginning to 'be' in line 2.
No. 6, page 2, leave out lines 4 and 5.

Mr. Dewar: I am afraid that the amendment takes us back into familiar territory. There is nothing mysterious about the group of amendments. The subject matter is familiar, because it is often raised when we discuss the passage of Bills through Committee—with good reason. I am delighted that the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) has sidled into the central position on the Front Bench to deal with the issue. We definitely need fresh thinking, and I fear that the Minister of State may, over many years, have been conditioned to resisting sensible proposals.
The text of amendment No. 4 does not tell the Committee much, but it is necessary to consider the amendment to get the argument into play. The amendments take a slightly unusual form, but involve the old business of affirmative and negative resolutions. It is clear that the Bill has raised strong feelings and much interest outside the House. The textual arguments on the intentions, nuances and opinions of the various lobbying organisations have made it clear that there is a willingness to express opinions. The issues involved are considerably sensitive.
In those circumstances, it would be sensible if orders—even if about transitional matters, halfway house arrangements and the position that arises when the rule change occurs halfway through a period of an employee's sick leave—should be brought to the notice of the House; we should not wait for an hon. Member to notice them and challenge them.
I immediately concede that I believe that the regulations to which I am attempting to apply the positive and affirmative procedure do not refer to the rebate level—the rebate has gone. That is one effect of the Bill that the simplest of us, even I, have managed to grasp. Nevertheless, the amendments raise important matters, and I hope that the Minister will be prepared to view them sympathetically.
11.45 pm
I realise that there is always a balance to be struck. I am quite keen on balances. I sometimes have difficulty in seeing things in black and white. That is perhaps one of my faults. I accept that the Executive always have arguments for saying that they do not want the system to become gummed up with too many applications of the affirmative resolution procedure. Clearly, if legislation is subject to the affirmative resolution, it must come at least before a Committee, if not to the Floor of the House. If we insisted on that procedure being applied in respect of a wide sweep of legislation, we might make this place even more unworkable than it is at the moment.
I am not suggesting for a moment that there are not arguments counterbalancing what I am saying—points to be put on the other side of the argument—and in the few minutes that we have left before the guillotine descends, hon. Members may want to address that point. My own view, however, is that there is enough real meat in the arguments that we have had over the past few hours and in previous days—and, indeed, over a number of years—to justify the use of the affirmative procedure in respect of regulations that are tied, and trace their ancestry back, to

this particular unfortunate Bill. In short order—because I am anxious to hear the Minister—I therefore commend the amendments to the Committee.

Mr. Hague: As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said, we are talking about the old business of the affirmative and negative resolution procedures—in this case in connection with the transitional or consequential provisions. The hon. Gentleman has asked me to give fresh thought to the matter, and I have done so. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will find that I have reached a familiar, though balanced, conclusion.
It has been the normal practice of the Government and of previous Governments to ensure that statutory instruments that give effect to non-controversial provisions consequential on the main changes in legislation should be dealt with under the negative resolution procedure. Parliament has previously decided which statutory instruments it wishes to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and therefore to closer scrutiny. Those are specifically referred to in section 176 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992.
For instance, the Government's proposals to change the present small employers' relief provisions, which will he brought before Parliament in due course, are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. But the transitional arrangements, which give effect to non-controversial transitional and consequential provisions, are not unreasonably left to be dealt with under the negative resolution procedure.
Any statutory instruments made under clause 2(3) will, of course, be laid before Parliament, open to the tabling of a prayer and debatable in the House. But I can assure the hon. Member for Garscadden and the Committee that any statutory instruments introduced under the arrangements in the clause will not be controversial—even in his estimation; they will be aimed solely at providing sensible—[Interruption.] It is a shame that the hon. Member for Garscadden is not listening to my explanation, after all the questions that he asked.
Such statutory arrangements will be aimed solely at providing sensible workable arrangements so that employers can continue to recover an appropriate amount of SSP liability for days of sickness up to and including 5 April and for the other objectives listed previously.

Mr. Flynn: The Minister would assist himself and the Committee if he put away his brief and explained what he is talking about in simple language.

Mr. Hague: To those of us on the Conservative Benches, it was both simple and very clear.
The Opposition's amendment amounts to a delaying tactic, and I suppose that, as such, it has been successful. If we were acting in the balanced way in which Governments and Parliament actually do, the hon. Member for Garscadden would withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Dewar: I do not intend to withdraw the amendment, and I hope that I will have the support of my right hon. and hon. Friends. For a horrible moment, I thought that the Under-Secretary was about to say that he had taken a wise judgment on the matter—a new concept in DSS mythology; at least he avoided that.
The explanation that the hon. Gentleman produced was that Parliament had previously decided which statutory instruments should be subject to which procedure. I do not


want to be one of those who talks over-zealously about the sovereignty of Parliament, but the fact that Parliament has previously decided does not stop Parliament deciding something different and, on this occasion, rather more sensible.
I accept—and as a reasonable man I made a nod towards the fact—that these are subsidiary regulations and not central to the thrust of the Bill, but they may be important to individuals. They certainly are important to the future good government of statutory sick pay. As Labour Members have repeatedly made clear, we believe that statutory sick pay has been weakened and that uncertainties have been built in by the misconceived measure that is being put on the statute book.
In those circumstances, it behoves the House to keep a measure of control over what is happening, and the best way to do so is to ensure that regulations laid under section 2, as it will become when the Bill is enacted, are brought to the attention of the House so they can be properly examined and the arguments—

It being six hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Second Reading of the Bill, THE CHAIRMAN proceeded to put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to the Order.

The Committee divided: Ayes 264, Noes 303.

Division No. 46]
[11.50 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Canavan, Dennis


Adams, Mrs Irene
Cann, Jamie


Ainger, Nick
Chisholm, Malcolm


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clapham, Michael


Allen, Graham
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Armstrong, Hilary
Clelland, David


Ashton, Joe
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Austin-Walker, John
Coffey, Ann


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cohen, Harry


Barnes, Harry
Connarty, Michael


Barron, Kevin
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Battle, John
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Bayley, Hugh
Corbett, Robin


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Corbyn, Jeremy


Beggs, Roy
Corston, Ms Jean


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Cousins, Jim


Bell, Stuart
Cox, Tom


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cryer, Bob


Bennett, Andrew F.
Cummings, John


Benton, Joe
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bermingham, Gerald
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Berry, Dr. Roger
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Betts, Clive
Dafis, Cynog


Blair, Tony
Darling, Alistair


Blunkett, David
Davidson, Ian


Boateng, Paul
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Boyes, Roland
Davis, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bradley, Keith
Davis, Ron (Caerphilly)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Denham, John


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Dewar, Donald


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Dixon, Don


Burden, Richard
Dobson, Frank


Byers, Stephen
Donohoe, Brian H.


Caborn, Richard
Dowd, Jim


Callaghan, Jim
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Eagle, Ms Angela


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Eastham, Ken





Enright, Derek
McKelvey, William


Etherington, Bill
Mackinlay, Andrew


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McLeish, Henry


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
McMaster, Gordon


Fatchett, Derek
McWilliam, John


Faulds, Andrew
Madden, Max


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Fisher, Mark
Mahon, Alice


Flynn, Paul
Mandelson, Peter


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Foulkes, George
Martlew, Eric


Fraser, John
Maxton, John


Fyfe, Maria
Meacher, Michael


Gapes, Mike
Meale, Alan


Garrett, John
Michael, Alun


George, Bruce
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Gerrard, Neil
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Milburn, Alan


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Miller, Andrew


Godsiff, Roger
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Golding, Mrs Llin
Morgan, Rhodri


Gould, Bryan
Morley, Elliot


Graham, Thomas
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Grocott, Bruce
Mudie, George


Gunnell, John
Mullin, Chris


Hain, Peter
Murphy, Paul


Hall, Mike
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hanson, David
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Hardy, Peter
O'Hara, Edward


Harman, Ms Harriet
Olner, William


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
O'Neill, Martin


Heppell, John
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Hinchliffe, David
Parry, Robert


Hoey, Kate
Patchett, Terry


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Pendry, Tom


Home Robertson, John
Pickthall, Colin


Hood, Jimmy
Pike, Peter L.


Hoon, Geoffrey
Pope, Greg


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hoyle, Doug
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Prescott, John


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Primarolo, Dawn


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Purchase, Ken


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hutton, John
Radice, Giles


Illsley, Eric
Randall, Stuart


Ingram, Adam
Raynsford, Nick


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Redmond, Martin


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Reid, Dr John


Jamieson, David
Rendel, David


Janner, Greville
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Rogers, Allan


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Rooney, Terry


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Rowlands, Ted


Jowell, Tessa
Ruddock, Joan


Keen, Alan
Salmond, Alex


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Khabra, Piara S.
Short, Clare


Kilfoyle, Peter
Simpson, Alan


Kirkwood, Archy
Skinner, Dennis


Leighton, Ron
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Lewis, Terry
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Litherland, Robert
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Livingstone, Ken
Snape, Peter


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Soley, Clive


Llwyd, Elfyn
Spearing, Nigel


Loyden, Eddie
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


McAllion, John
Steinberg, Gerry


McAvoy, Thomas
Stevenson, George


McCrea, Rev William
Stott, Roger


Macdonald, Calum
Strang, Dr. Gavin






Straw, Jack
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Tipping, Paddy
Wilson, Brian


Turner, Dennis
Winnick, David


Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold
Wise, Audrey


Wallace, James
Worthington, Tony


Walley, Joan
Wray, Jimmy


Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Wright, Dr Tony


Wareing, Robert N
Young, David(Bolton SE)


Watson, Mike



Welsh, Andrew
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wicks, Malcolm
Mr. John Spellar and


Wigley, Dafydd
Mr. Jake Thompson.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Alexander, Richard
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Day, Stephen


Amess, David
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Devlin, Tim


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Ashby, David
Dicks, Terry


Aspinwall, Jack
Dorrell, Stephen


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Dover, Den


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Duncan, Alan


Baldry, Tony
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Dunn, Bob


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Bates, Michael
Dykes, Hugh


Batiste, Spencer
Eggar, Tim


Bellingham, Henry
Elletson, Harold


Bendall, Vivian
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Beresford, Sir Paul
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Booth, Hartley
Evennett, David


Boswell, Tim
Faber, David


Bottomnley, Peter (Eltham)
Fabricant, Michael


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Bowden, Andrew
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bowis, John
Fishburn, Dudley


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Forman, Nigel


Brandreth, Gyles
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Brazier, Julian
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bright, Graham
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Browning, Mrs. Angela
French, Douglas


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Fry, Peter


Budgen, Nicholas
Gale, Roger


Burns, Simon
Gallie, Phil


Burt, Alistair
Gardiner, Sir George


Butcher, John
Garnier, Edward


Butler, Peter
Gill, Christopher


Butterfill, John
Gillan, Cheryl


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gorst, John


Carrington, Matthew
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Carttiss, Michael
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Cash, William
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Chapman, Sydney
Grylls, Sir Michael


Churchill, Mr
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Clappison, James
Hague, William


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hannam, Sir John


Coe, Sebastian
Hargreaves, Andrew


Colvin, Michael
Harris, David


Congdon, David
Haselhurst, Alan


Conway, Derek
Hawkins, Nick


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hawksley, Warren


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Heald, Oliver


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Cormack, Patrick
Hendry, Charles


Couchman, James
Hicks, Robert


Cran, James
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.





Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Page, Richard


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Paice, James


Horam, John
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Pawsey, James


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Pickles, Eric


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hunter, Andrew
Powell, William (Corby)


Jack, Michael
Rathbone, Tim


Jenkin, Bernard
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Jessel, Toby
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Richards, Rod


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Riddick, Graham


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Robathan, Andrew


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Key, Robert
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Kilfedder, Sir James
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Knapman, Roger
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Sackville, Tom


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Knox, Sir David
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Shersby, Michael


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Sims, Roger


Legg, Barry
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Leigh, Edward
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Soames, Nicholas


Lidington, David
Speed, Sir Keith


Lightbown, David
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lord, Michael
Spink, Dr Robert


Luff, Peter
Spring, Richard


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Sproat, Iain


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


MacKay, Andrew
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Maclean, David
Steen, Anthony


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stephen, Michael


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Stern, Michael


Madel, David
Stewart, Allan


Maitland, Lady Olga
Streeter, Gary


Malone, Gerald
Sumberg, David


Mans, Keith
Sweeney, Walter


Marland, Paul
Sykes, John


Marlow, Tony
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mates, Michael
Thomason, Roy


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Merchant, Piers
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Milligan, Stephen
Thurnham, Peter


Mills, Iain
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Townsend Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Tracey, Richard


Moate, Sir Roger
Tredinnick, David


Monro, Sir Hector
Trend, Michael


Moss, Malcolm
Trotter, Neville


Needham, Richard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nelson, Anthony
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Neubert, Sir Michael
Viggers, Peter


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Nicholls, Patrick
Walden, George


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Waller, Gary


Norris, Steve
Ward, John


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Waterson, Nigel


Ottaway, Richard
Watts, John






Wells, Bowen
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld>


Whitney, Ray
Wolfson, Mark


Whittingdale, John
Wood, Timothy


Widdecombe, Ann
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Wiggin, Sir Jerry



Wilkinson, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Willetts, David
Mr. Irvine Patnick and


Wilshire, David
Mr. James Arbuthnot.


Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Question accordingly negatived.

THE CHAIRMAN then put forthwith the other Questions necessary for the disposal of business to be concluded at that hour.

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand Part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 306,Noes 232.

Division No. 47]
[12.03am


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Coe, Sebastian


Alexander, Richard
Colvin, Michael


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Congdon, David


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Conway, Derek


Amess, David
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Arbuthnot, James
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Cormack, Patrick


Ashby, David
Couchman, James


Aspinwall, Jack
Cran, James


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Baldry, Tony
Day, Stephen


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Devlin, Tim


Bates, Michael
Dickens, Geoffrey


Batiste, Spencer
Dicks, Terry


Bellingham, Henry
Dorrell, Stephen


Bendall, Vivian
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Beresford, Sir Paul
Dover, Den


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Duncan, Alan


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dunn, Bob


Booth, Hartley
Durant, Sir Anthony


Boswell, Tim
Dykes, Hugh


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Eggar, Tim


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Elletson, Harold


Bowden, Andrew
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Bowis, John
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Brandreth, Gyles
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Brazier, Julian
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Bright, Graham
Evennett, David


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Faber, David


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Fabricant, Michael


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Budgen, Nicholas
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Burns, Simon
Fishburn, Dudley


Burt, Alistair
Forman, Nigel


Butcher, John
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Butler, Peter
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Butterfill, John
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Carrington, Matthew
French, Douglas


Carttiss, Michael
Fry, Peter


Cash, William
Gale, Roger


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Gallie, Phil


Churchill, Mr
Gardiner, Sir George


Clappison, James
Garnier, Edward


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Gill, Christopher


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Gillan, Cheryl


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles





Gorst, John
Mates, Michael


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Merchant, Piers


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Milligan, Stephen


Grylls, Sir Michael
Mills, Iain


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hague, William
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
Moate, Sir Roger


Hampson, Dr Keith
Monro, Sir Hector


Hannam, Sir John
Moss, Malcolm


Hargreaves, Andrew
Needham, Richard


Harris, David
Nelson, Anthony


Haselhurst, Alan
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hawkins, Nick
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hawksley, Warren
Nicholls, Patrick


Hayes, Jerry
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Heald, Oliver
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Norris, Steve


Hendry, Charles
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hicks, Robert
Oppenheim, Phillip


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Ottaway, Richard


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Page, Richard


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Paice, James


Horam, John
Patnick, Irvine


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Patten, Rt Hon John


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Pawsey, James


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Pickles, Eric


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hunter, Andrew
Powell, William (Corby)


Jack, Michael
Rathbone, Tim


Jenkin, Bernard
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Jessel, Toby
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Richards, Rod


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Riddick, Graham


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Robathan, Andrew


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Key, Robert
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Kilfedder, Sir James
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Knapman, Roger
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Sackville, Tom


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Knox, Sir David
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Shersby, Michael


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Sims, Roger


Legg, Barry
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Leigh, Edward
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Soames, Nicholas


Lidington, David
Speed, Sir Keith


Lightbown, David
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lord, Michael
Spink, Dr Robert


Luff, Peter
Spring, Richard


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Sproat, Iain


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Maclean, David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Steen, Anthony


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Stephen, Michael


Madel, David
Stern, Michael


Maitland, Lady Olga
Stewart, Allan


Malone, Gerald
Streeter, Gary


Mans, Keith
Sumberg, David


Marland, Paul
Sweeney, Walter


Marlow, Tony
Sykes, John


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)






Temple-Morris, Peter
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Thomason, Roy
waterson, Nigel


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Watts, John


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wells, Bowen


Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Whitney, Ray


Thurnham, Peter
Whittingdale, John


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Widdecombe, Ann


Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Tracey, Richard
Wilkinson, John


Tredinnick, David
Willetts, David


Trend, Michael
Wilshire, David


Trotter, Neville
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Twinn, Dr Ian
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Wolfson, Mark


Viggers, Peter
Wood, Timothy


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Walden, George



Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Waller, Gary
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Ward, John
Mr. Andrew MacKay.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Darling, Alistair


Adams, Mrs Irene
Davidson, Ian


Ainger, Nick
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Allen, Graham
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Denham, John


Armstrong, Hilary
Dewar, Donald


Austin-Walker, John
Dixon, Don


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dobson, Frank


Barnes, Harry
Donohoe, Brian H.


Barron, Kevin
Dowd, Jim


Battle, John
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Bayley, Hugh
Eagle, Ms Angela


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Eastham, Ken


Beggs, Roy
Enright, Derek


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Etherington, Bill


Bennett, Andrew F.
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Benton, Joe
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Bermingham, Gerald
Fatchett, Derek


Betts, Clive
Faulds, Andrew


Blair, Tony
Fisher, Mark


Blunkett, David
Flynn, Paul


Boateng, Paul
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Boyes, Roland
Foulkes, George


Bradley, Keith
Fraser, John


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Fyfe, Maria


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Gapes, Mike


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Garrett, John


Burden, Richard
George, Bruce


Byers, Stephen
Gerrard, Neil


Caborn, Richard
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Callaghan, Jim
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Graham, Thomas


Canavan, Dennis
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Cann, Jamie
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Grocott, Bruce


Clapham, Michael
Gunnell, John


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hall, Mike


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hanson, David


Clelland, David
Hardy, Peter


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Harman, Ms Harriet


Coffey, Ann
Heppell, John


Cohen, Harry
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Connarty, Michael
Hinchliffe, David


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hoey, Kate


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Corbett, Robin
Home Robertson, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hood, Jimmy


Corston, Ms Jean
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cousins, Jim
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cox, Tom
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Cryer, Bob
Hoyle, Doug


Cummings, John
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Dafis, Cynog
Hutton, John





Ingram, Adam
Pickthall, Colin


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Pike, Peter L.


Janner, Greville
Pope, Greg


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Prescott, John


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jowell, Tessa
Radice, Giles


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Randall, Stuart


Khabra, Piara S.
Raynsford, Nick


Kilfoyle, Peter
Reid, Dr John


Kirkwood, Archy
Rendel, David


Leighton, Ron
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Lewis, Terry
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Livingstone, Ken
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Rogers, Allan


Llwyd, Elfyn
Rooney, Terry


Loyden, Eddie
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


McAllion, John
Rowlands, Ted


McAvoy, Thomas
Ruddock, Joan


McCrea, Rev William
Salmond, Alex


Macdonald, Calum
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Mackinlay, Andrew
Short, Clare


McLeish, Henry
Simpson, Alan


McMaster, Gordon
Skinner, Dennis


McWilliam, John
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Madden, Max
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Mahon, Alice
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Mandelson, Peter
Snape, Peter


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Spearing, Nigel


Martlew, Eric
Spellar, John


Maxton, John
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Meacher, Michael
Steinberg, Gerry


Meale, Alan
Stevenson, George


Michael, Alun
Stott, Roger


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Straw, Jack


Milburn, Alan
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Miller, Andrew
Tipping, Paddy


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Wallace, James


Morgan, Rhodri
Walley, Joan


Morley, Elliot
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Wareing, Robert N


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Watson, Mike


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Welsh, Andrew


Mowlam, Marjorie
Wigley, Dafydd


Mudie, George
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Mullin, Chris
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Murphy, Paul
Wilson, Brian


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Wise, Audrey


O'Hara, Edward
Worthington, Tony


Olner, William
Wray, Jimmy


O'Neill, Martin
Wright, Dr Tony


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley



Paisley, Rev Ian
Tellers for the Noes:


Parry, Robert
Mr. Jack Thompson and


Patchett, Terry
Mr. Eric Illsley.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

CORRESPONDING PROVISION FOR NORTHERN IRELAND. 1974 c. 28

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 300, Noes 220.

Division No. 48]
[12.16 am


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Duncan, Alan


Alexander, Richard
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Dunn, Bob


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Amess, David
Dykes, Hugh


Arbuthnot, James
Eggar, Tim


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Elletson, Harold


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Emery, Rt Hon Peter


Ashby, David
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Aspinwall, Jack
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Evennett, David


Baldry, Tony
Faber, David


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Fabricant, Michael


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Bates, Michael
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Batiste, Spencer
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bellingham, Henry
Fishburn, Dudley


Bendall, Vivian
Forman, Nigel


Beresford, Sir Paul
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Booth, Hartley
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Boswell, Tim
French, Douglas


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Fry, Peter


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Gale, Roger


Bowden, Andrew
Gardiner, Sir George


Bowis, John
Garnier, Edward


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Gill, Christopher


Brandreth, Gyles
Gillan, Cheryl


Brazier, Julian
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bright, Graham
Gorst, John


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Grylls, Sir Michael


Budgen, Nicholas
Hague, William


Burns, Simon
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Burt, Alistair
Hampson, Dr Keith


Butcher, John
Hannam, Sir John


Butler, Peter
Hargreaves, Andrew


Butterfill, John
Harris, David


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Haselhurst, Alan


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hawkins, Nick


Carrington, Matthew
Hawksley, Warren


Carttiss, Michael
Hayes, Jerry


Cash, William
Heald, Oliver


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Chapman, Sydney
Hendry, Charles


Churchill, Mr
Hicks, Robert


Clappison, James
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Horam, John


Coe, Sebastian
Hordern, Rt Hon Peter


Colvin, Michael
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Congdon, David
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Conway, Derek
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Cormack, Patrick
Hunter, Andrew


Couchman, James
Jack, Michael


Cran, James
Jenkin, Bernard


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jessel, Toby


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Day, Stephen
Jones, Robert B. (W Herfdshr)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Devlin, Tim
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dickens, Geoffrey
Key, Robert


Dicks, Terry
Kilfedder, Sir James


Dorrell, Stephen
King, Rt Hon Tom


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dover, Den
Knapman, Roger





Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Knox, Sir David
Sackville, Tom


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Scoot, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Legg, Barry
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Leigh, Edward
Shersby, Michael


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Sims, Roger


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lidington, David
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lightbown, David
Smith, Sir (Beaconsfield)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Soames, Nicholas


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Speed, Sir Keith


Lord, Michael
Spencer, Sir Derek


Luff, Peter
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Maclean, David
Spink, Dr Robert


McLoughlin, Patrick
Spring, Richard


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Sproat, Iain


Madel David
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Malone, Gerald
Steen, Anthony


Mans, Keith
Stephen, Michael


Marland, Paul
Stern, Michael


Marlow, Tony
Stewart, Allan


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Streeter, Gary


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Sumberg, David


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Sweeney, Walter


Mates, Michael
Sykes, John


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Merchant, Piers
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Milligan, Stephen
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mills, Iain
Thomason, Roy


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Moate, Sir Roger
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Monro, Sir Hector
Thurnham, Peter


Moss, Malcolm
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Needham, Richard
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Nelson, Anthony
Tracey, Richard


Neubert, Sir Michael
Tredinnick, David


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Trend, Michael


Nicholls, Patrick
Trotter, Neville


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Norris, Steve
Viggers, Peter


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Oppenheim, Phillip
Walden, George


Ottaway, Richard
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Page, Richard
Waller, Gary


Paice, James
Ward, John


Patnick, Irvine
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Waterson, Nigel


Pawsey, James
Watts, John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wells, Bowen


Pickles, Eric
Whitney, Ray


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Whittingdale, John


Porter, David (Waveney)
Widdecombe, Ann


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Powell, William (Corby)
Wilkinson, John


Rathbone, Tim
Willetts, David


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Wilshire, David


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Richards, Rod
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Riddick, Graham
Wolfson, Mark


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Wood, Timothy


Robathan, Andrew
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn



Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Mr. Robert G. Hughes and


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Mr. Andrew Mackay.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Allen, Graham


Ainger, Nick
Armstrong, Hilary






Austin-Walker, John
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Barnes, Harry
Graham, Thomas


Barron, Kevin
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Battle, John
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Bayley, Hugh
Grocott, Bruce


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Gunnell, John


Beggs, Roy
Hall, Mike


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Hanson, David


Bennett, Andrew F.
Hardy, Peter


Benton, Joe
Harman, Ms Harriet


Bermingham, Gerald
Heppell, John


Betts, Clive
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Blunkett, David
Hinchliffe, David


Boyes, Roland
Hoey, Kate


Bradley, Keith
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Home Robertson, John


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Hood, Jimmy


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Burden, Richard
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Byers, Stephen
Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)


Caborn, Richard
Hoyle, Doug


Callaghan, Jim
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Canavan, Dennis
Hutton, John


Cann, Jamie
Ingram, Adam


Chisholm, Malcolm
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Clapham, Michael
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Clelland, David
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Coffey, Ann
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Cohen, Harry
Jowell, Tessa


Connarty, Michael
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Khabra, Piara S.


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Corbett, Robin
Kirkwood, Archy


Corbyn, Jeremy
Lewis, Terry


Corston, Ms Jean
Lloyd Tony (Stretford)


Cousins, Jim
Llwyd, Elfyn


Cox, Tom
Loyden, Eddie


Cryer, Bob
McAllion, John


Cummings, John
McAvoy, Thomas


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McCrea, Rev William


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Macdonald, Calum


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Mackinlay, Andrew



Dafis, Cynog
McLeish, Henry


Darling, Alistair
McMaster, Gordon


Davidson, Ian
McWilliam, John


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Madden, Max


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
Mahon, Alice


Denham, John
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dewar, Donald
Martlew, Eric


Dixon, Don
Maxton, John


Dobson, Frank
Meacher, Michael


Donohoe, Brian H.
Meale, Alan


Dowd, Jim
Michael, Alun


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Eagle, Ms Angela
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Eastham, Ken
Milburn, Alan


Enright, Derek
Miller, Andrew


Etherington, Bill
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Morgan, Rhodri


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Morley, Elliot


Fatchett, Derek
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Faulds, Andrew
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Fisher, Mark
Mowlam, Marjorie


Flynn, Paul
Mudie, George


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Mullin, Chris


Foulkes, George
Murphy, Paul


Fraser, John
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Fyfe, Maria
O'Hara, Edward


Gapes, Mike
Olner, William


Garrett, John
O'Neill, Martin


George, Bruce
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Gerrard, Neil
Paisley, Rev Ian


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Parry, Robert





Patchett, Terry
Snape, Peter


Pickthall, Colin
Spearing, Nigel


Pike, Peter L.
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Steinberg, Gerry


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Stevenson, George


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Stott, Roger


Prescott, John
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Primarolo, Dawn
Straw, Jack


Quin, Ms Joyce
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Radice, Giles
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Randall, Stuart
Tipping, Paddy


Raynsford, Nick
Wallace, James


Reid, Dr John
Walley, Joan


Rendel, David
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Wareing, Robert N


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Watson, Mike


Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Welsh, Andrew


Rogers, Allan
Wigley, Dafydd


Rooney, Terry
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Rowlands, Ted
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Salmond, Alex
Wilson, Brian


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wise, Audrey


Short, Clare
Worthington, Tony


Simpson, Alan
Wray, Jimmy


Skinner, Dennis
Wright, Dr Tony


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)



Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Tellers for the Noes:


Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)
Mr. Eric Illsley and


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Mr. John Spellar.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

CITATION, COMMENCEMENT, FINANCIAL PROVISION AND EXTENT

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 297, Noes 208.

Division No. 49]
[12.30 am


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Budgen, Nicholas


Alexander, Richard
Burns, Simon


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Burt Alistair


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Butcher, John


Amess, David
Butler, Peter


Arbuthnot, James
Butterfill, John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Ashby, David
Carrington, Matthew


Aspinwall, Jack
Carttiss, Michael


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Cash, William


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Chapman, Sydney


Baldry, Tony
Chruchill, Mr


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Clappison, James


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Bates, Michael
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)


Batiste, Spencer
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Bellingham, Henry
Coe, Sebastian


Bendall, Vivian
Colvin, Michael


Bereford, Sir Paul
Congdon, David


Biffen Rt Hon John
Conway, Derek


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Booth, Hartley
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Boswell, Tim
Cormack, Patrick


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Couchman, James


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Cran, James


Bowden, Andrew
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Bowis, John
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Day, Stephen


Brandreth, Gyles
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Brazier, Julian
Devlin, Tim


Bright, Graham
Dickens, Geoffrey


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Dicks, Terry


Browing, Mrs. Angela
Dorrell, Stephen


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James






Dover, Den
Knox, Sir David


Duncan, Alan
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Dunn, Bob
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Durant, Sir Anthony
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Dykes, Hugh
Legg, Barry


Eggar, Tim
Leigh, Edward


Elletson, Harold
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lidington, David


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lightbown, David


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lloyd, peter (Fareham)


Evennett, David
Lord, Michael


Faber, David
Luff, Peter


Fabricant, Michael
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Mackay, Andrew


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Maclean, David


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fishburn, Dudley
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Forman, Nigel
Madel, David


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Maitland, Lady Olga


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Malone, Gerald


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Mans, Keith


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Marland, Paul


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Marlow, Tony


French, Douglas
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Fry, Peter
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Gale, Roger
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gallie, Phil
Mates, Michael


Gardiner, Sir George
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Garnier, Edward
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Gill, Christopher
Merchant, Piers


Gillan, Cheryl
Milligan, Stephen


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mills, Iain


Gorst, John
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Moate, Sir Roger


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Monro, Sir Hector


Grylls, Sir Michael
Moss, Malcolm


Hague, William
Needham, Richard


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
Nelson, Anthony


Hampson, Dr Keith
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hannam, Sir John
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hargreaves, Andrew
Nicholls, Patrick


Harris, David
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Haselhurst, Alan
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hawkins, Nick
Norris, Steve


Hawksley, Warren
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hayes, Jerry
Oppenheim, Phillip


Heald, Oliver
Ottaway, Richard


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Page, Richard


Hendry, Charles
Paice, James


Hicks, Robert
Patnick, Irvine


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Pawsey, James


Horam, John
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Pickles, Eric


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Porter, Bary (Wirral S)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Rathbone, Tim


Hunter, Andrew
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Jack, Michael
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Jenkin, Bernard
Richards, Rod


Jessel, Toby
Riddick, Graham


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Robathan, Andrew


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Key, Robert
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Kilfedder, Sir James
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Kirkhope, Timothy
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Knapman, Roger
Sackville, Tom


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Shaw, David (Dover)





Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Shersby, Michael
Tracey, Richard


Sims, Roger
Tredinnick, David


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Trend, Michael


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Trotter, Neville


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Soames, Nicholas
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Speed, Sir Keith
Viggers, Peter


Spencer, Sir Derek
Waldern, George


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Waller, Gary


Spink, Dr Robert
Ward, John


Spring, Richard
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Sproat, Iain
Waterson, Nigel


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Watts, John


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wells, Bowen


Steen, Anthony
Whitney, Ray


Stephen, Michael
Whittingdale, John


Stern, Michael
Widdecombe, Ann


Stewart, Allan
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Streeter, Gary
Wilkinson, John


Sumberg, David
Willetts, David


Sweeney, Walter
Wilshire, David


Sykes, John
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Wolfson, Mark


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Wood, Timothy


Temple-Morris, Peter
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Thomason, Roy



Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Mr. Robert G. Hughes and


Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Mr. Michael Brown.


Thurnham, Peter





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Corbyn Jeremy


Adams, Mrs Irene
Corston, Ms Jean


Ainger, Nick
Cousins, Jim


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cox, Tom


Allen, Graham
Cryer, Bob


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Cummings, John


Armstrong, Hilary
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Barnes, Harry
Dafis, Cynog


Barron, Kevin
Darling, Alistair


Battle, John
Davidson, Ian


Bayley, Hugh
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Beggs, Roy
Davies, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Denham, John


Bennett, Andrew F.
Dewar, Donald


Benton, Joe
Dixon, Don


Bermingham, Gerald
Dobson, Frank


Betts, Clive
Donohoe, Brian H.


Boyes, Roland
Dowd, Jim


Bradley, Keith
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Eagle, Ms Angela


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Eastham, Ken


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Enright, Derek


Burden, Richard
Etherington, Bill


Byers, Stephen
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Caborn, Richard
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Callaghan, Jim
Fatchett, Derek


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Faulds, Andrew


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Fisher, Mark


Canavan, Dennis
Flynn, Paul


Cann, Jamie
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Chisholm, Malcolm
Foulkes, George


Clapham, Michael
Fraser, John


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Fyfe, Maria


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Gapes, Mike


Clelland, David
Garrett, John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
George, Bruce


Coffey, Ann
Gerrard, Neil


Cohen, Harry
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Connarty, Michael
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Graham, Thomas


Corbett, Robin
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)






Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Murphy, Paul


Grocott, Bruce
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Gunnell, John
O'Hara, Edward


Hall, Mike
Olner, William


Hanson, David
O'Neill, Martin


Hardy, Peter
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Harman, Ms Harriet
Paisley, Rev Ian


Heppell, John
Pickthall, Colin


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Pike, Peter L.


Hoey, Kate
Pope, Greg


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Home Robertson, John
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hood, Jimmy
Prescott, John


Hoon, Geoffrey
Primarolo, Dawn


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Radice, Giles


Hoyle, Doug
Randall, Stuart


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Raynsford, Nick


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Reid, Dr John


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Rendel, David


Hutton, John
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Illsley, Eric
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Ingram, Adam
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Rogers, Allan


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Rooney, Terry


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Rowlands, Ted


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Salmond, Alex


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Jowell, Tessa
Short, Clare


Khabra, Piara S.
Simpson, Alan


Kilfoyle, Peter
Skinner, Dennis


Kirkwood, Archy
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Lewis, Terry
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Smith, Rt Hon Jon (M'klds E)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Loyden, Eddie
Snape, Peter


McAllion, John
Spearing, Nigel


McAvoy, Thomas
Spellar, John


McCrea, Rev William
Steinberg, Gerry


Macdonald, Calum
Stevenson, Geroge


Mackinlay, Andrew
Stott, Roger


McMaster, Gordon
Straw, Jack


McWilliam, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Madden, Max
Tipping, Paddy


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Wallace, James


Mahon, Alice
Walley, Joan


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Martlew, Eric
Wareing, Robert N


Maxton, John
Watson, Mike


Meale, Alan
Welsh, Andrew


Michael, Alun
Wigley, Dafydd


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Wilson, Brian


Milburn, Alan
Wise, Audrey


Miller, Andrew
Worthington, Tony


Morgan, Rhodri
Wray, Jimmy


Morley, Elliot
Wright, Dr Tony


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)



Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Tellers for the Noes:


Mudie, George
Mr. Jack Thompson and


Mullin, Chris
Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to the Third Reading [Queen's consent signified]:—

The House divided: Ayes 298, Noes 204.

Division No.50
[12.44 am


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Ashby, David


Alexander, Richard
Aspinwall, Jack


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)


Amess, David
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)


Arbuthnot, James
Baldry, Tony


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Banks, Matthew (Southport)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)





Bates, Michael
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Batiste, Spencer
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Bellingham, Henry
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Bendall, Vivian
French, Douglas


Beresford, Sir Paul
Fry, Peter


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gale, Roger


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Gallie, Phil


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gardiner, Sir George


Booth, Hartley
Garnier, Edward


Boswell, Tim
Gill, Christopher


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Gillan, Cheryl


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bowden, Andrew
Gorst, John


Bowis, John
Grant, Sir A (Cambs SW)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Brandreth, Gyles
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Brazier, Julian
Grylls, Sir Michael


Bright, Graham
Hague, William


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hannam Sir John


Budgen, Nicholas
Hargreaves, Andrew


Burns, Simon
Harris, David


Burt, Alistair
Haselhurst, Alan


Butcher, John
Hawkins, Nick


Butler, Peter
Hawksley, Warren


Butterfill, John
Hayes, Jerry


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Heald, Oliver


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carrington, Matthew
Hendry, Charles


Carttiss, Michael
Hicks, Robert


Cash, William
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Churchill, Mr
Horam, John


Clappison, James
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on A)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'd ford)


Coe, Sebastian
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Colvin, Michael
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Congdon, David
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hunter, Andrew


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Jack, Michael


Cormack, Patrick
Jenkin, Bernard


Couchman, James
Jessel, Toby


Cran, James
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jones, Gwilym Cardiff N)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Day, Stephen
Key, Robert


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Kinfedder, Sir James


Devlin, Tim
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dickens, Geoffrey
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dicks, Terry
Knapman, Roger


Dorrell, Stephen
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knight, Greg (Gerby N)


Dover, Den
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Duncan, Alan
Knox, Sir David


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Dunn, Bob
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Durant, Sir Anthony
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Dykes, Hugh
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Eggar, Tim
Legg, Barry


Elletson, Harold
Leight, Edward


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lidington, David


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lightbown, David


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Evennett, David
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Faber, David
Lord, Michael


Fabricant, Michael
Luff, Peter


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Macgregor, Rt Hon John


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Mackay, Andrew


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Maclean, David


Fishburn, Dudley
McLoughlin, Patrick


Forman, Nigel
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Madel, David


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Maitland, Lady Olga






Malone, Gerald
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Mans, Keith
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Marland, Paul
Soames, Nicholas


Marlow, Tony
Speed, Sir Keith


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mates, Michael
Spink, Dr Robert


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Spring, Richard


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Sproat, Iain


Merchant, Piers
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Milligan, Stephen
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mills, Iain
Steen, Anthony


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Stephen, Michael


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Stern, Michael


Moate, Sir Roger
Stewart, Allan


Monro, Sir Hector
Streeter, Gary


Moss, Malcolm
Sumberg, David


Needham, Richard
Sweeney, Walter


Nelson, Anthony
Sykes, John


Neubert, Sir Michael
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Nicholls, Patrick
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Thomason, Roy


Norris, Steve
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N )


Oppenheim, Phillip
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Ottaway, Richard
Thurnham, Peter


Page, Richard
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Paice, James
Townsend, Cyrill D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Patnick, Irvine
Tracey, Richard


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Tredinnick, David


Pawsey, James
Trend, Michael


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Trotter, Neville


Pickles, Eric
Twinn, Dr Ian


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Porter, David (Waveney)
Viggers, Peter


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Powell, William (Corby)
Walden, George


Rathbone, Tim
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Waller, Gary


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Ward, John


Richards, Rod
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Riddick, Graham
Waterson, Nigel


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Watts, John


Robathan, Andrew
Wells, Bowen


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Whitney, Ray


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Whittingdale, John


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Widdecombe, Ann


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Wilkinson, John


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Willetts, David


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Wilshire, David


Sackville, Tom
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wolfson, Mark


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wood, Timothy


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)



Shersby, Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sims, Roger
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Mr. Derek Conway




NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Bermingham, Gerald


Ainger, Nick
Betts, Clive


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Boyes, Roland


Allen, Graham
Bradley, Keith


Armstrong, Hilary
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E )


Barnes, Harry
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Barron, Kevin
Burden, Richard


Battle, John
Byers, Stephen


Bayley, Hugh
Caborn, Richard


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Callaghan, Jim


Beggs, Roy
Cambpell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Canavan, Dennis


Bennett, Andrew F.
Cann, Jamie


Benton, Joe
Chisholm, Malcolm





Clapham, Michael
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Jones, Lynne B'ham S O)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW )


Clelland, David
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Jowell, Tessa


Coffey, Ann
Khabra, Piara S.


Cohen, Harry
Kilfoyle, Peter


Connarty, Michael
Kirkwood, Archy


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Lewis, Terry


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Corbett, Robin
Llwyd, Elfyn


Corbyn, Jeremy
Loyden, Eddie


Corston, Ms Jean
McAllion, John


Cousins, Jim
McAvoy, Thomas


Cox, Tom
McCrea, Rev William


Cryer, Bob
Macdonald, Calum


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Mackinlay, Andrew


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
McMaster, Gordon


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
McWilliam, John


Dafis, Cynog
Madden, Max


Darling, Alistair
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Davidson, Ian
Mahon, Alice


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Martlew, Eric


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
Maxton, John


Denham, John
Meale, Alan


Dewar, Donald
Michael, Alun


Dixon, Don
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Dobson, Frank
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Donohoe, Brian H.
Milburn, Alan


Dowd, Jim
Miller, Andrew


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Moonnie, Dr Lewis


Eagle, Ms Angela
Morgan, Rhodri


Eastham, Ken
Morley, Elliot


Enright, Derek
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Etherington, Bill
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Mudie, George


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Mullin, Chris


Fatchett, Derek
Murphy, Paul


Faulds, Andrew
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Fisher, Mark
O'Hara, Edward


Flynn, Paul
Olner, William


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
O'Neill, Martin


Foulkes, George
Paisley, Rev Ian


Fraser, John
Pickthall, Colin


Fyfe, Maria
Pike, Peter L.


Gapes, Mike
Pope, Greg


Garrett, John
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


George, Bruce
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Gerrard, Neil
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Prescott, John


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Primarolo, Dawn


Golding, Mrs Llin
Quin, Ms Joyce


Graham, Thomas
Radice, Giles


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Raynsford, Nick


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Reid, Dr John


Grocott, Bruce
Rendel, David


Gunnell, John
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Hall, Mike
Robinson, Peter (Belfaslt E)


Hanson, David
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Hardy, Peter
Rogers, Allan


Harman, Ms Harriet
Rooney, Terry


Heppell, John
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Rowlands, Ted


Hoey, Kate
Salmond, Alex


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Home Robertson, John
Short, Clare


Hood, Jimmy
Simpson, Alan


Hoon, Geoffrey
Skinner, Dennis


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Hoyle, Doug
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Snape, Peter


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Spearing, Nigel


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Spellar, John


Hutton, John
Steinberg, Gerry


Ingram, Adam
Stevenson, George


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Stott, Roger


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)






Tipping, Paddy
Wilson, Brian


Wallace, James
Wise, Audrey


Walley, Joan
Worthington, Tony


Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Wray, Jimmy


Wareing, Robert N
Wright, Dr Tony


Watson, Mike



Welsh, Andrew
Tellers for the Noes:


Wigley, Dafydd
Mr. Jack Thompson and


Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)
Mr. Eric Illsley.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Social Security (Contributions) Bill [Ways and Means]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Social Security (Contributions) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the following provisions—

National health service allocation

(1) In section 162(5) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (destination of contributions: national health service allocation), in paragraph (a) (allocation in case of primary Class 1 contributions) for the words from "the earnings" to the end substitute "to much of the earnings in respect of which those contributions were paid as exceeded the lower earnings limit but did not exceed the upper earnings Limit;".—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Before I call the Minister, it may be for the convenience of hon. Members if I remind those wishing to catch my eye during the debate that they should note that the ways and means motion covers only the changed method of allocating national insurance funds to the national health service, dealt with in clause 2 of the Bill. Nothing else is relevant.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. William Hague): As the House is aware, a ways and means resolution is needed where there is provision for payment into the Consolidated Fund of receipts that do not arise from taxation. In this case, such a resolution would provide for payments to be made out of the national insurance contributions received by the Secretary of State towards the cost of the health service, as provided by clause 2 of the Bill that will be before the House tomorrow.
The Bill is concerned primarily with an increase in national insurance contributions. The ways and means resolution does not relate to that in any way. It is required only for the minor corrective provision concerning the health service allocation out of contributions, with which we are taking the opportunity to deal in the Bill. There is no change in the policy intention and no change in existing practice. I invite the House to approve the motion.

Mr. Bob Cryer: The resolution is important because it is clearly retrospective. The House has always been critical of retrospective legislation, particularly where it applies to taxation and, for the purposes of the Bill, the resolution is the equivalent of taxation.
I recall the Housing Finance (Special Provisions) Act 1975—

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nicholas Soames): Was the hon. Gentleman a Member then?

Mr. Cryer: No, I was not.
That Act made retrospective application for Clay Cross councillors. The then Conservative Opposition spokesman said that such retrospective legislation was the slippery slope to fascism. Given the Conservative party's attitude at that time, it is relevant to inquire why the Government now seek a resolution that provides retrospective authority for expenditure of some £4·6 billion.
That is a large sum of money, yet it appears that there is doubt about the vires of the actions of Ministers in


allocating money from national insurance contributions. Why, therefore, have the Government taken so long to table a resolution to clarify the position? It is quite extraordinary. This is a not inconsiderable sum.
Has a legal challenge to the Government been mounted on the basis of previous legislation? How was previous legislation so defective that it now needs the authority of the House to authorise expenditure of £4·6 billion?
Will the Minister assure me that the resolution will not impose a retrospective charge on any national insurance contributor, because people outside the House would be outraged if, after making national insurance contributions, they found that a resolution passed on 15 December made them liable to make extra payments? That is the basis of my opposition to retrospective legislation, especially on taxation.
If the resolution does not impose retrospective increases in national insurance contributions, Ministers must therefore have made payments to the national health service from existing national insurance contributions, which they have found to be at fault. This resolution is not simply a routine resolution but a resolution to get Ministers off the hook, their having made payments of doubtful legal validity.
The resolution says that it
shall be deemed to have had effect as from the commencement of section 1 of the Social Security Act 1989.
It seems extraordinary that, in effect, the operation of the resolution is backdated four years. There may be a straightforward, innocent explanation for the delay in these payments, about which there is a scintilla of doubt, but how wide is a scintilla? Is it a slight chance, or has an official in the Department told Ministers, "We have been making payments of £4·6 billion to the national health service without any legal authority"? Or did some phrase in an earlier piece of legislation raise that scintilla of doubt in the minds of civil servants? Perhaps they said, "We had better have belt and braces: we had better make the position absolutely clear in the latest Social Security (Contributions) Bill."
That, however, does not answer the final question: why have the Government chosen to rush the Bill through at the last minute, when for four years the legislation has contained a defect requiring this enormous payment to be authorised by a ways and means motion?

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: One of the problems with social security legislation is the way in which the Government rush into it. They have guillotined such legislation on many occasions, denying the House and the public an opportunity to scrutinise it properly. As a result, mistakes and uncertainties creep into the legislation.

Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We should bear in mind that the Bill to which the motion relates is due to churn its way through the legislative sausage machine tomorrow. We dealt with the money motion relating to the Statutory Sick Pay Bill the night before the Bill was debated. We are similarly disadvantaged in the present instance. The procedure has been reversed: we are dealing with a ways and means motion before discussing the Bill's content.
It is important to raise such issues on as wide a basis as possible within the terms of the motion. We have not benefited from any debate on the Bill; there has been no

Second Reading debate, in which the Minister could have explained the background and procedures in detail. In rushing the Bill through, the Government are adopting a highly defective procedure, forcing the House to consider the ways and means motion in order to hear the Minister's proposals—cold and separate from the Bill itself. That was the Minister's choice, not that of the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) was right to raise the issue. It is possible that, in the ordinary course of events—if the Government had not imposed this curious procedure on the House—no question would have been raised about the motion. However, in this instance we have had no Second Reading debate and no debate in Committee of the whole House, which we had for the Statutory Sick Pay Bill.
According to the Minister, the basis of the Statutory Sick Pay Bill was the fact that many people were taking time off because of illness: he claimed that the sick pay obligation should be transferred to employers, who would chase employees and try to stop them being ill. That is a curious view of human nature. I wonder whether the payments authorised by the ways and means resolution will improve the national health service and the health of the nation—if, indeed, any fresh money is involved—to such an extent that the Statutory Sick Pay Bill will not be necessary. The Government often boast about all the money that they are spending on the NHS, but it does not seem to be having any effect.

Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it just possible that the hon. Gentleman—who is an excellent performer—is going a little wide of the issue?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): No. As far as I can tell, the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) is fully within the rules of order.

Mr. Cryer: I am very grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know from your ever vigilant handling of our proceedings that no hon. Member need try to usurp your excellent conduct in the Chair. Indeed, I would defend you against any of the insults implied by the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow).
I do not want to go on for too long. However, my questions are serious. We have some vivid memories. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will recall vividly the criticisms advanced against retrospective legislation, from the Conservative Benches, in respect of the Clay Cross councillors. If those criticisms were advanced honestly at the time, I wonder why the Government are moving this retrospective ways and means motion asking Parliament for authority to pay £4·6 billion since 1989. I assume that that money has already been handed over to the national health service. However, we do not know whether that has happened because the matter is not very clear and we have not had the debate that we should have had.
I hope that the Minister will respond to those serious questions. He moved the motion very briefly. He could have taken the opportunity to elaborate on some of those points and that would have pre-empted a contribution from the Opposition Benches. It would have saved parliamentary time. I am having to make up for the Minister's very short introduction and that is not something that I particularly like doing.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: My hon. Friend keeps referring to the £4·6 billion for the national health service. Is he absolutely confident that the Government will ensure that that money is spent to improve the national health service?

Mr. Cryer: If the Government do not do that, they will be in breach of this ways and means motion. This motion is the ways and means of finding the money to authorise that expenditure by the Government. Under the heading
Financial effects of the Bill",
clause 2 refers to
authority for payments amounting to some £4·6 billion from October 1989 to April 1994.
Part of that £4·6 billion must be paid from money that has yet to be received and the motion authorises that money until April 1994. It will be interesting to hear from the Minister precisely what future payment is involved and how much of the ways and means motion represents retrospective payment for earlier defective legislation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover made an important point. If the House tries to short-cut legislative procedures, including ways and means motions and money resolutions, it is always possible for defective legislation to be passed. In some cases, Ministers may make illegal payments if the legislation is defective.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and I agree about many things. However, I believe that there are occasions when retrospective legislation is important. My hon. Friend referred to a series of incidents in relation to the Housing Finance Act 1972. I voted for that retrospective legislation, as did my hon. Friend. I have also voted for other retrospective legislation.
Does my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South agree that the NHS badly needs this money? It would be better for us to argue that the money should be paid over because the NHS needs it and there are a thousand and one reasons for allocating it. I do not want my hon. Friend to go in too hard on the Minister. I would like to think that the money will be spent. It is important to find out where the money will go. Is it going to go on management or on nurses? Will it be used to reduce the waiting lists?

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. There are two parts of authority which the ways and means motion gives. One is for the retrospective part-that is, presumably, money already spent. However, since clause 2 provides for payments up to April 1994, of course there are future payments, and that is the section that I was dealing with.
I want an assurance that the Minister will follow only the authority of the ways and means motion, which means that money has to be spent on the national health service. Of course, as a side issue—we cannot go into it in too great detail—about the actual allocation of the money, it is a block amount, and the ways and means motion does not specify the detail within the national health service. However, I take it that it is agreed that, when hon. Members vote on the motion, they will expect that the money will be spent on an care for patients and not on administrative superstructure.

Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend should strongly refute the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that it might be perfectly all right for retrospective legislation to approve the actions of other

people but not of Ministers. If we allow Ministers to act illegally and then to get retrospective legislation to make their illegality legal, we will dramatically reduce the power of the House of Commons to control Ministers.

Mr. Cryer: I share the view about retrospective legislation. There are occasions when retrospective legislation might be necessary—there is no question about that. My point about the ways and means motion and its retrospection is not of my making: it was put forward during the period of the previous Labour Government by the Conservative Opposition, when they used the phrase, not I, that retrospective legislation was the slippery slope of fascism. That was not said by a wild-eyed, goggle-eyed, right-wing Conservative Back-Bench extremist, although that is a possibility with so many candidates for such a description present: it was said by the Conservative party spokesman. It seems fair that we should judge the actions and attitudes of the Government in assessing the ways and means motion on the basis that what was right in 1974 to 1979 should be right, in their values, today.
I do not want to go on much further, but those are two important points. The point that I was making before dealing with my hon. Friends' contributions was essentially that, if Parliament does not carry out the legislative procedure with some deliberation, we will find ourselves confronted with errors. It seems as though we are confronted with such an error, which is being put right by the Bill and the ways and means motion, authorising the collection of the money and its expenditure. This is a lesson, because it is a hurried procedure. As I have said, it is topsy-turvy. We have to spend some time on the motion. My hon. Friends are seeking information from me when, really, it should have been given on Second Reading and perhaps in Committee, when we dealt with the Bill on the Floor of the House. That is why this time is being taken.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: I am listening to my hon. Friend's contribution with great interest and no little concern. I must confess that I had not intended even to be present to hear him, but I am extremely pleased that I remained.
I am very worried about the £4·6 billion, or the amount which apparently has already been paid, because I do not understand where it has come from. Am I to gather that there are billions of pounds floating and being allocated at whim by Ministers without authority? Why have we not known about that? I regard myself as a fairly assiduous and conscientious Member, and I am disturbed to find that money is apparently floating and that it has not been obvious to me that that is happening. Does that tell us something not only about procedures for the scrutiny of Bills, but about procedures for the scrutiny of Government accounts? Can my hon. Friend shed any light on that matter for me?

Mr. Cryer: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. She probably was not able to rush rapidly into the Chamber to hear the commencement of my speech—probably because her access was blocked by other hon. Members who were trying to get in to listen.
I mentioned the point that she raised at the beginning of my speech. If there were a defect in the legislation which requires the ways and means resolution, it is extraordinary that it has taken at least four years to be found out. I ask the Minister whether the matter was discovered by the


potential legal challenge or whether it was simply that a civil servant discovered that there had been a defect in the drafting of the legislation from a previous Act.
This is a technical exercise, according to House of Commons research paper 93/113, to remedy a defect. The ways and means resolution is to authorise an enormous expenditure, and we have not heard what proportion of that has already been paid. It authorises future expenditure, up to April next year, of a huge sum of money, £4·6 billion, without any explanation. We are going to give authority to the Minister because of the defect.
By way of comparison, if that had happened in a local authority, the Government would have been fulsome in their criticism. Ministers are in a privileged position, because if local authority councillors had been in a similar position and had discovered that payments were not completely justified legally because of a defect in a resolution that had been passed by a committee, they would have faced surcharge.
Ministers do not have that terrible penalty over their heads. If there is a defect, they simply come back to the House with a ways and means resolution and a bit of legislation to accompany it, and they are free of any encumbrance. It is worth bearing it in mind that the House produces legislation in which perfectly ordinary, decent people who are trying to do their best in the community make an error and find themselves facing bankruptcy, disbarment from office and even the seizure of their possessions.
The Minister is in exactly the same position as a councillor would be. A mistake has been made for which he is seeking rectification to authorise what had been illegal payments. I hope that the Government do not accept the position with smugness. While we disagree with their policies, we accept that they are not spending part of that money on luxury yachts to go off to the Caribbean.

Mr. Skinner: How does my hon. Friend know?

Mr. Cryer: So far as we know, they are not doing that. Let us assume charitably that they are not.
The Government should take a more charitable view of the work of local authorities, bearing in mind the fact that the House has been confronted with a ways and means resolution and retrospective provision, something which they were so critical about in the past. We should examine retrospective provision with a critical eye. I hope that the Minister provides comprehensive answers, because the House deserves nothing less.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I wish to support my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and to express my disappointment that the Minister made so little effort to explain to the House why the resolution was necessary and why it took the Government so long to realise that there was a problem. Technically, of course, the Minister cannot address the House again unless we give him permission to do so. It seems discourteous of the Minister not to have given a full explanation of what went on in this case.
I suggest to the Minister that, on the whole, it has been a good policy that, when Ministers apologise and make it clear that mistakes have been made, the House has been

understanding. However, when Ministers try to brush something under the carpet and get away without making a full explanation, the House has been less sympathetic and can take a lot longer to find out what is happening. I was disappointed that the Minister did not make more of an attempt to explain why the errors occurred, and why they took such a long time to come to light.
Many of my constituents are concerned about their national insurance contributions and whether the rules can be changed retrospectively. The Bill is another example of that. We are always warned to look at the fine print, but as the government can change the fine print retrospectively, what is the point of looking at it?
The Government have to set out clearly on what occasions they can justify retrospective legislation. No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) can think of occasions when retrospective legislation can be justified, but it is hard to justify when it is used because Ministers have made a mistake. Did they make the mistake when the original legislation was drafted? Have they had further advice that the payments they are making are illegal? Is it that the original legislation was not covered by an appropriate ways and means resolution? What exactly has gone wrong?

Mr. Skinner: I wish that my hon. Friend would listen carefully. I was making the point in a philosophical fashion—there are bound to be occasions when Labour Members believe in the government intervening and planning to level things out to help those at the bottom to get to the top. There are bound to be occasions when retrospective legislation is necessary to put right the wrongs of 14 years of Tory government. I am not talking about this specific Bill, I am talking in a philosophical fashion. I wish that my hon. Friend would get back on the rails.

Mr. Bennett: I thank my hon. Friend for that, but I shall not be drawn into the wrongs of the past 14 years.
It is reasonable for retrospective legislation to put right what has happened outside—in other words, to make life better for our constituents. However, it is not right to use retrospective legislation to let Ministers off the hook and make legal what they did, which was probably illegal. That dramatically reduces the accountability of Ministers to the House of Commons. If they are challenged in the House of Commons and found to have done something wrong, or if they are challenged in the courts, they can simply come back here and reverse the decision.

Mr. Skinner: I am not arguing that point. I have no doubt about what I would do with that lot, but I shall not go into that now. There are occasions when we have to use retrospective legislation for our own purposes. On this occasion, there has been a gigantic fiddle somewhere. I want my hon. Friend to expose it in the next couple of hours.

Mr. Bennett: I can understand that my hon. Friend might want me to expose it in the next couple of hours, but I certainly do intend to use the next couple of hours. I shall leave plenty of time for my hon. Friend to make his own speech.
I want the Minister to explain why it was necessary to use retrospective legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and I sit on the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. We repeatedly find that Ministers have amazing powers by regulation to


correct mistakes. However, the Social Security Act 1989 and the Social Security Act 1975, which were absolutely littered with statutory instrument-making powers, were not correctable by regulation.

Mr. Skinner: We are surrounded by Select Committees examining everything under the sun. I do not get involved in that sloppy consensus, but they are supposed to be looking into every nook and cranny. They go on fact-finding tours all over the world to examine how other people are doing it, yet somehow or other £4·6 billion has slipped away. It is high time that members of those Select Committees did a job of work and found out where that money is going. Does my hon. Friend agree? Will he do something about it? Is he a member of a Select Committee? Yes, he is. Can he deal with it? My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) is the Chairman of a Select Committee.

Mr. Bennett: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention. Members of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments do not have the power to go tripping, as do members of other Select Committees. They have the boring task of examining a large number of regulations. In the last 12 months, the Committee has considered almost 3,000 regulations from a Government who talk about deregulation. The speed at which regulations appear is remarkable. It is odd that, in this instance, the Government did not in four years introduce a regulation to make good the legislation.

Mr. Cryer: Library background paper No. 113 makes it clear that, by a fluke, the House must consider a Ways and Means resolution, as we are, and primary legislation, because section 143(4)(a)(ii) of the Social Security Adminstration Act 1992 states that primary legislation is required where an increase in primary or secondary class 1 contributions is greater than 0·25 per cent. The House laid down the provision that requires the matter to be dealt with by primary legislation—much to the embarrassment, I suspect, of the Ministers who brought this measure before the House.

Mr. Bennett: I am puzzled by my hon. Friend's statement, because there is often a limit, by way of regulations, by which the Government can increase or decrease an amount of money. If the Government want to exceed the total set out in primary legislation, they can do so in two stages. If the Government had known what they were doing, instead of dealing with the matter in one stage by way of primary legislation and a ways and means resolution, they could have altered the amount each year since 1989—and thus remained within the limit to which my hon. Friend referred. The Government ought to explain why it was necessary to approach the matter in the way that they did.
My constituents are most concerned that the Government do not appear to know what they are doing or to be accountable to Parliament—and that when it appears to suit the Government, they simply change the rules.
I shall be reluctant to hear the Minister's explanation because he should have paid the House the courtesy of providing one at the beginning of this debate. As he has already spoken, another Minister should wind up.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. In these circumstances, the Minister has the right of reply. He moved a substantive motion.

Mr. Bennett: I am glad to hear that the Minister has the right of reply, and I shall listen to him with interest.

Mrs. Wise: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) expressed concern over where the money will go, but my concern is where it is to come from. Where are the Government obtaining £4·6 billion? No explanation is given in the Bill. Can my hon. Friend shed any light on how much of that £4·6 billion has already been paid out and how much has still to be paid? If not, perhaps he will ask the Minister to do so. We cannot tell how much money has yet to be injected into the national health service as a result of the Ways and Means resolution.

Mr. Bennett: Perhaps it would be more appropriate for the Minister to answer my hon. Friend's questions. It is a pity that he did not cover such points at the beginning of the debate.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I would like to have heard what the Minister had to say on the subject, because I have listened carefully to my two hon. Friends talking about this money and, quite frankly, I am staggered by that £4·6 billion. It seems as though this legislation was very fortuitous. We thought initially that the legislation was a one-off job, arising out of the unified Budget.The Government said that they had to get it done quickly because of the need to sort out the employers' payments and all the rest of it, and to make sure that everything was straight and above board.
Several times I have seen Ministers on television, saying that it is necessary to get the legislation through this week, and that they cannot wait another moment because of all the intricacies that follow in getting the legislation through. Then I listen to my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), and I find out that a massive sum of £4·6 billion seems to have been unaccounted for all that time.
We have so many people examining such things. There is a body called the Audit Commission. Does the Audit Commission follow those events? I should like to know. Earlier I mentioned Committees; they are set up to examine things. The Chairman comes on the television and says that they have discovered £200 million gone missing, and there is a big story. It is in every newspaper. They talk about a great find when they have uncovered some drugs. Yet here tonight, in the twilight hours£it is "The Twilight Zone", is it not?—suddenly we are told that £4·6 billion is unaccounted for.
I want to know, is it £4·6 billion? If the Government have not been able to identify it since 1989, how can we be sure that we are talking about 4·6 billion quid? The Minister can get up and intervene if he likes; I shall not object to him speaking as many times as he wants, provided that we can get to the bottom of the matter. I would like to know from the Minister: is it £4·6 billion? What guarantees do we have that it is not more than that?

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend must be aware that, on past occasions, with both money resolutions and ways and means resolutions, because the Government have not covered every detail of what is required they have often had to come back to the House for another money resolution or ways and means resolution. My hon. Friend's question about the current ways and means resolution is


therefore very pertinent because we do not want to have to come back here late at night because the Government discover another £1 billion that is not authorised.

Mr. Skinner: It was only because I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South discuss it in the first place that I realised what a total mess the Government have made of it. The Government have been involved in many scandals in the past 14 years, but I ask you—£4·6 billion, and they conveniently come and drop it across us just before Christmas. Is it not handy? I suppose that is the reason why we have got that tonight. It could all have been revealed and dealt with in the debate tomorrow.
Of course, the debate should have gone on anyway. We should not have been having this debate tomorrow. My hon. Friend and I and one or two others made a proposition some time ago in which we demanded that we carry on for several more days before Christmas. We could have examined the issue in that time. We could have had perhaps a three-hour debate or a full day's debate.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) could have been in and he could have taken account of it and then he could have set up his Select Committee. It could have examined the matter in detail and perhaps might have stopped the Government from doing this.
I think that the Government should still stop. They ought to have the decency to pull this legislation out because we do not know whether the sum is £4·6 billion; they have plucked the figure out of the air. We are told that it will go on until 1994. Which element is the part from 1989 until today and how much continues after that? As far as I know, the Minister never explained all that, so we are in the dark about that sum of money, some of which is retrospective. I have a point, and if the Minister gets up to speak again, it could be the end of the debate.

Mr. Cryer: Will my hon. Friend give way? Mr. Peter Atkinson (Hexham): Sit down.

Mr. Skinner: I am prepared to, provided that I will get the chance to speak again.

Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend not agree that, first, the Minister only took a minute to introduce this ways and means resolution and, secondly, when Members on the Government Benches shout out that they want the debate to finish, it is because they do not want debate? They are the people who make proud boasts about controlling public expenditure, yet they do not want a debate. The Government have produced this back-to-front system, wherby we have to deal with the money resolution before the debate on the Bill, when they could have explained everything. Yet Government Back Benchers want to cut out debate entirely.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend knows only too well that the Minister only took one minute and those Back Benchers seem to dismiss £4·6 billion because, after 14 years, the Government are full of arrogance and contempt, not just for people like us, but for the British people. They have been in power that long, they think that they can get away with anything. A gang behind them thinks that all they have to do is back the Minister and that is the end of it. It is a pity that no Members of Parliament from the Tory

Benches have the guts to understand—£4·6 billion has been plucked out of the sky. What could we do with that? Where should it have been spent? That is what I would like to know.

Mr. Cryer: On the health service.

Mr. Skinner: Yes. It might have saved all those hospitals from being closed. I saw it announced today on the television that the Government are shutting Bart's. I wonder whether they were taking that into account when Golden Virginia was talking about shutting Bart's and all those other hospitals. I wonder whether she asked, "What about this £4·6 billion?"
As far as we know, money has been available. The Government cannot tell us; they do not even know whether £4·6 billion is the correct figure and they have not told us how much will stretch over into 1994. The whole business is a can of worms—it stinks to high heaven.
I am fed up with Ministers saying that the Labour party wants to spend money right, left and centre. They are spending money and they do not even know it. They sacked the Chancellor of the Exchequer because he lost £10 billion in an afternoon, and he was nowhere near a betting shop. Some of the Tories cheered because the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer had got the sack for losing £10 billion in an afternoon. No one held him up with a gun, did they? It just went. Some of the same Ministers are glorying in the fact that the ex-Chancellor now has to look after the safe at Rothschilds. I would not have him handling the safe if I were Rothschilds—not after losing £10 billion —[Laughter.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I realise that the hon. Member has taken wing, so to speak, but I remind him of the narrow nature of the ways and means motion before us.

Mr. Skinner: I was just making an analogy. There has been a constant discussion on both sides of the House about the loss of £10 billion in an afternoon, after the demise of the exchange rate mechanism, which some of us had been trying to persuade the Government to withdraw from long before. Now we find, late at night, that £4·6 billion has suddenly been plucked out of the thin air before a debate takes place tomorrow, and no one seems to know how it has come about.
It is retrospective legislation. My hon. Friends the Members for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), who has just come in, and for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) know all about retrospective legislation, because they have been involved in trade unions which have been hammered by such legislation.
It is a scandal that the Government are carrying on in this cavalier fashion with other people's money. There are people in this country who do not have two ha'pennies to rub together. People are lying on the streets. Yet the Government come along and tell them that there is £4·6 billion—if it is £4·6 billion. Who knows—it could be £8·6 billion. It is high time the Government were held to account.
The sad thing is that Tory Members are attacking Labour authorities because they spent an extra couple of bob. The Government introduced the rate support grant, or the equivalent of it, the other week. They told local authorities that they would be capped if they did not stick


to the levels set, and they said it again yesterday at the Welsh local government review. It is always the same. Yet the Government can lose money hand over fist.
I should like to know what will happen to the £4·6 billion when it gets to the health service. Who will get the money? Will it be given to the management? We hear all these stories about the increase in the number of managers in the national health service. I should like to know precisely where the money will go. I do not want the Minister to tell me that he cannot explain it because he is not in the Department of Health. I am fed up with Ministers saying that they do not know the details.
The other day, I was flabbergasted when I heard Lady Thatcher speaking on television. She had the gall to tell us that she did not understand things in detail because she dealt with only the big issues. This is the same woman who followed the Belgrano in the Falklands war. She watched it every inch—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must stick to the point.

Mr. Skinner: I am sticking to the point. I am saying that the Government have plucked £4·6 billion out of thin air—they cannot explain it—and a former Prime Minister now has the gall to tell us that she did not follow things in detail. After a year-long miners' strike, who does she think she is kidding?

Mrs. Wise: My hon. Friend is asking where the £4·6 billion will go. I understand that some of the money has already gone, so we should be asking where it went. Will my hon. Friend ask the Minister—if my hon. Friend cannot supply an answer—about not only where the £4·6 billion or the amount that has already gone came from, but what it was spent on if it was taken without authority for the purpose described in the motion? Presumably, when the Government raised the money from national insurance contributions it should have been earmarked for some purpose. If some of it was taken without authority for the NHS, what went short which otherwise would have received money raised from people's contributions?

Mr. Skinner: Where has the money gone? Let us assume that £2 billion has gone. We do not know where it went. My hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) is in a position to find out.
Tonight, the Government should pull off this ways and means resolution in so far as it affects the £4·6 billion, or they should do it tomorrow. Tomorrow, there should be a manuscript amendment in which we call for that part which is included in the Bill to be taken out and then my hon. Friend, who is on the Select Committee for Health, together with her colleagues, should set up an investigation and find out where the money went.
One thing is certain: the people in my constituency have not seen that money spent, because waiting lists in the health authority in Derbyshire have spiralled. I can tell the House where some of the money might have gone. It might have gone to line the pockets of those Tory spivs who run the health authorities up and down Britain.
That is a fair bet. We keep reading about massive wage increases for the spivs who run the health authorities, and some of them have been lining their pockets left, right and centre. When the Select Committee discusses the matter, I want my hon. Friend the Member for Preston to find out how much of the money has gone to finance the people

running the health authorities, which ought in any case to be democratically controlled. That is another subject that I want to deal with; I shall come to the quangos later.

Mrs. Wise: In addition to the interesting points that my hon. Friend is making, would he care to reflect on the brass neck of Ministers who can deem things to have taken effect, although they should have been done four years ago, and to contrast that with the Government's rigidity on time limits for making benefits claims? People with excellent reasons for not having made a claim are told, "No, there is no statutory authority for any retrospective payment." Why do the Government not apply that reasoning to themselves?

Mr. Skinner: We all know that the money has not gone into the social fund. People used to have a chance to apply for some assistance, and various entitlements, and if they failed they could appeal against the decision. People have no chance to appeal now; all that has been taken away. The Government have gone on in that way for the past 14 years, but now they have to learn the lesson that they no longer have a majority of 150 or 100. They are down to 17. Who knows, the majority may be even lower in 12 months' time. There are the Ulster Unionists, who, according to—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman knows what I am going to say. What he is talking about is not relevant to the matter under discussion.

Mr. Skinner: What I am trying to say is—

Madam Deputy Speaker: I know what the hon. Gentleman is trying to say; I am telling him that he should not be saying it.

Mr. Skinner: Everybody should be aware of what is supposed to be a narrow ways and means resolution in connection with the Government's ability to carry through their legislation tomorrow. Normally that would be run of the mill. But it has been discovered that £4·6 billion, some of which is retrospective, is referred to in the Bill but not explained. You cannot tell me, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we can afford to turn a blind eye and allow what would normally be a technical resolution to slip through when my hon. Friends the Members for Preston and for Bradford, South have identified £4·6 billion that has suddenly been discovered by this tinpot Government.

Mr. Cryer: Would my hon. Friend care to comment on the blanket nature of the ways and means resolution? It simply asks for £4·6 billion. There is no account of how the money has been spent, and nothing in the Bill or in the explanatory and financial memorandum about how the balance of the money to be authorised under the resolution until next April is to be spent. In other words, the alleged guardians of the public purse have brought a generalised ways and means resolution to the House with no explanation. My hon. Friend will want to demand chapter and verse of all the expenditure covered by the £4·6 billion.

Mr. Skinner: That is what I am demanding. The heading is:
Financial effects of the Bill",
and we had better get back to those, because I have been called to order. We have a narrow technical ways and means resolution which could mean anything, and the explanatory and financial memorandum says:


Clause 2 provides authority for the future payment of some £1 billion per year to the National Health Service out of National Insurance contributions.
We are not complaining about that, because we understand that money raised in this way can be used for the national health service. However, clause 2 also authorises payments amounting to "some £4·6 billion". "Some"—that is a fancy word in respect of large sums of money. What does it mean?
I challenge all the clever accountants and auditors among Conservative Members who work for all the posh City firms: if the word "some" was used in that context in a set of accounts, would they accept them? Would they accept the phrase "some £4·6 billion"? Why do not the Government state clearly what is meant by "some"? They do not because they do not know—it is another Lamont job. We could be talking about £14·6 billion.
This is the Government who constantly tell people at general elections not to vote Labour because Labour will borrow money, but they live in never-never land. The Government are living on tick and they have the cheek to include the word "some" under the heading "Financial effects of the Bill". They should say that the sum is exactly £4·6 billion, if that is the case. It is no wonder that the Government are in a hell of a mess.

Dr. Robert Spink: Come on.

Mr. Skinner: I challenge the hon. Gentleman to tell his constituents next door to the Isle of Dogs—on Canvey Island—that he is voting with the Government to allow "some £4·6 billion" to be spent although he does not know on what, he is not even sure whether it is £4·6 billion and the people of Canvey Island are being ripped off left, right and centre. He should explain that to them.

Dr. Spink: The people of Benfleet and Canvey Island are interested in the fact that this year 115 patients are being treated under the national health service for every 100 who were treated just four years ago.

Mr. Skinner: The people of Benfleet and Canvey Island have seen the waiting lists increase and be fiddled. They understand only too well that they are part of the 1 million casualties who cannot be treated under the NHS. I had to respond to the hon. Gentleman, Madam Deputy Speaker, because he seems to think that this is a trivial matter. I am talking about "some £4·6 billion" and I want an exact figure to be included in the Bill. The Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) used to be the former Chancellor of the Exchequer's Parliamentary Private Secretary. He is reckoned to be an expert on money, so will he tell me what "some" means in this context?

Mrs. Wise: I am disappointed in my hon. Friend because he is, uncharacteristically, being too kind to the Government. I am correct in my stricture because he has not yet commented on the fact that we are not discussing only one error. Anyone could make one error, although most of us do not make an error amounting to £4·6 billion. The Government are not only having to deem something to be effective from 1989 but having to deem something—something else, presumably—to be effective from 1992. That means that there are at least two errors.
My hon. Friend should be very severe with the Government. They are treating the matter with levity and seem to regard it as a huge joke, but they are having to correct two errors. If I had spent money that I did not have, on no matter what worthy cause, no one would be sympathetic if I told the bank or the House that I was deeming that I had it four years ago.

Mr. Skinner: I do not think that they are errors; that is where my hon. Friend and I disagree. The phrase "some £4·6 billion" has been put in deliberately so that the Government can say, as they have done in the Scott inquiry, that the provision did not really constitute legislation or even an Order in Council. They needed to be able to pull the wool over people's eyes. My hon. Friend the Member for Preston accused me of being kind to the Government—I know that she did not mean it in this context—but the Government are carrying on in a shady manner. It is all part of the Government's corrupt activity.
The financial memorandum also includes another sum. It states:
Clause 1 will increase contributions to the National Insurance Fund by some £1·9 billion in a full year.
What are the Government coming to? What sort of shop are they running? Imagine someone going into a shop and asking, "How much is it?" and being told, "It is some £3." It is the same procedure as used for museums: people can decide whether or not to pay when they go into museums —some pay, some do not.
The Bill associated with the ways and means resolution—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are dealing with clause 2 only.

Mr. Skinner: I am talking on clause 2: I just mentioned the sum of £1·9 billion because it is another deliberate error designed to make the matter vague.
Let us forget about clause 1 for a minute. In fact, according to Madam Deputy Speaker, we must forget it for ever.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Today.

Mr. Skinner: Yes, clause 1 can be debated tomorrow, which is, in fact, today. Parliament has a cock-eyed system —it is tomorrow now, but the debate is taking place today.
Clause 2 mentions "some £4·6 billion", but only a few days ago, the Government made lots of mistakes over the Northern Ireland business. What happened? The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said that he was conscientious and so went to the Prime Minister and said, "I am awfully sorry. I offer my resignation because of the Government errors, whether or not they are deliberate."
The Ministers should do the same over the Social Security (Contributions) Bill. Why have they not got the guts to go to the Prime Minister and say, "Here we are —we have made another series of mistakes. We are not sure on the amount of money, we do not know what it is for, where it has come from and where it has been spent." Ministers should have the guts to resign instead of coming to the Chamber and laughing like Cheshire cats as though it does not matter. There are people outside lying on the stones who have not got a roof over their heads, while the Government try to say that they cannot account for the £4·6 billion.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is right to call for the Ministers' resignation. Will he bear in mind that the


retrospective provision under the ways and means resolution goes back to 1989? The current Chancellor of the Exchequer has wreaked a wrecking path through several Departments, one of which was the Department of Health, and he may be responsible for the error. Will my hon Friend enlarge on that subject, because it worries a number of people, both inside and outside the House, to think that a man who may have been responsible for a serious error and the illegal payment of perhaps £3 billion or £4 billion is now in charge of the nation's finances?

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend has told only half the story. He is right about the then Secretary of State for Health—the blue suede shoes man. In fact, his shoes are not blue—except when he has spilled ale on them. The other half of the story is that the current Prime Minister was in the Exchequer at about that time. He came from the belly of the banking establishment. He could not do a bus conductor's job, but finished up with Standard Chartered bank. It was a gigantic leap, as we all understand. Most Tory Members come from the belly of the banking establishment. Then they find out that £4·6 billion has gone missing—

Mr. Cryer: Some £4·6 billion.

Mr. Skinner: Yes, some £4·6 billion. They find out that that sum has gone missing and they expect to pull the wool over my eyes. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South is right: in view of what has happened, they ought to pack their clogs and get off out of it.
The number of times that the Government tell us that we cannot handle money. I am fed up to the back teeth with coming in here and finding that this tin-pot Government have lost money again. And whose money is it? It is not theirs. They put taxes up left, right and centre. They do it in a different fashion, of course. "VAT is not tax," they say. "Insurance contributions such as those under discussion today are not really tax." Of course they are. Tax has gone up by the equivalent of about 7p in the pound in the past few years.
That money belongs to people out there who are slogging for a living—those of them who have a job—or who are among the 4 million who are out on the stones. Those people would like to know where the money is going. Why has not Mr. Andrew Neil of The Sunday Times —the Tories' friend—exposed this scandal in his paper, which reckons to discover all these things? What has happened to all the BBC documentaries? From 1974 to 1979 we had a Labour Government; I know that it is a long time ago, but I remember it.

Mr. Cryer: Me, too.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend and I remember those days. My hon. Friend remembers them particularly well because he was running the country then. I will give my hon. Friend credit: I cannot remember a single ways and means or money resolution that was incorrect during my hon. Friend's time.

Mr. Cryer: There wasn't one.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend never stood up on a money or ways and means resolution in all that year and a half.

Mr. Cryer: I assure my hon. Friend that the last Labour Government never lost £46, let alone £4·6 billion. We never had to put a motion such as this before the House in order to make up for illegal expenditure.

Mr. Skinner: Now my hon. Friend tells me that he was not there in 1976; he must have joined a bit later, at the time of the Lib-Lab pact. They were dark days indeed.

Mr. Cryer: I ought to correct my hon. Friend in case his irony is lost in the record of our proceedings, which may show that I joined at some time during the Lib-Lab pact. I assure my hon. Friend that I joined before that, in order to revive small industries and co-operatives, which enjoyed an unprecedented period of prosperity and happiness during my two years.

Mr. Skinner: Let me make a quick comment in answer to my hon. Friend. We had a manufacturing base then. Now we are down to a manufacturing base of about 4 million, yet the Government talk about GATT and how we will suddenly jump off the springboard. We do not have a springboard to jump off—I will finish with that point, Madam Deputy Speaker.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South talked about ways and means resolutions then; and he talked about the fact that we never lost £4·6 billion—or, at least, the Government did not; I did not lose any. It is true that the IMF came in. Is it not odd that we hear all the talk about the IMF in 1976 and 1977, given that, although that should never have happened, it pales into insignificance compared with the £4·6 billion, and the £10 billion that the last Chancellor of the Exchequer lost in one afternoon? I took a principled position, along with some of my hon. Friends, on the IMF. North sea oil was round the corner. They should have told that Mr. Witteveen that they had the oil money. That is what they should have said to him. They caved in, but the money involved was peanuts compared to the £4·6 billion.
It is 2.10 am and suddenly we have discovered that the Government do not know where the £4·6 billion has come from. Is it any wonder that the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People has to apologise about that backlog of disability claims every time he answers parliamentary questions? It is all part of the Government's approach to affairs.
The Government are riddled with the idea that they need not care about ordinary people as long as they can sluther legislation through. We are coming to reckoning day, so Ministers had better be looking around for directorships in privatised industries before they are all swallowed up. When they are in opposition, they will need them. We will pass a Bill if I get my manifesto accepted—one Member of Parliament, one job. That will be one of the things that we shall do straight away.
I have got to get back to "some £4·6 billion". Where will that money go? We shall pick up the papers in a week or two and read that the Department of Health is having new carpets fitted at Richmond house, which as just been decorated again. The Government will spend money like water, and perhaps we have alerted them to the need to stop it. Perhaps tonight's debate has put the mockers on it. I do not think that the Minister will understand that.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend has raised a nagging doubt in my mind about the resolution. He may well be right. Bradford hospital trust, which was established by the


Tories and is run by business men not for the national health service but as a first stage to privatisation, spent £250,000 on a new entrance hall to Bradford royal infirmary. It decided that it would create a better atmosphere. When someone who is bleeding to death is admitted to Bradford royal infirmary, he will have a better atmosphere as he passes through the doors and passes out. By authorising this resolution, we might be authorising that sort of payment, which was made a year or two ago —just as this some £4·6 billion was.

Mr. Skinner: Yes, the Government spend money on such things and if they get their way—I suppose that they will, because Conservative Members will trot through the Lobby at the appropriate moment—we know what will happen. I could think of a thousand and one things that the money could be spent on in Bolsover. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South mentioned spending money on insignificant things, but just think what we could do with this money. We should tell the Minister of the various ways in which we could help people in hospitals with that money.

Mrs. Wise: Does my hon. Friend accept that, although it may be wrong to spend money on, for instance, Richmond house and new entrance halls, funding should be devoted to some aspects of accommodation? Is he aware that, in many parts of the country, including Preston, nurses are being turned out of nurses' homes for reasons that are by no means clear? The decision fails to reflect the value of having nurses on site and available on call to deal with emergencies or disasters. Nurses in Preston were given notive to quit two weeks ago and will be leaving just after Christmas. If some of the money were made available to prevent that from happening, it would be extremely well spent.

Mr. Skinner: Of course it would.
Apparently Westminster hospital has been closed, or is in the process of being closed—

Mr. Terry Lewis: They have closed it.

Mr. Skinner: So they have already closed it. I saw a march on television: people were marching through the streets to try to save the Royal Marsden, which is a cancer hospital. Yet here we are, having suddenly found £4·6 billion. We are talking about posh areas of London. I wonder what people think when they find out that the Government have misplaced £4·6 billion, or perhaps even more. I wonder what my hon. Friends' constituents think: all my hon. Friends know of people who want operations. They could have had those operations if we had known about this money.

Mr. Lewis: My hon. Friend mentioned Westminster hospital, only a few hundred yards from here. It is now boarded up. Is my hon. Friend aware that the hospital that was built to replace it—and two or three others—was nearly £200 million over budget? Is it not possible, given the amount of overspending involved in the £4·6 billion, that that is part of the money that has been lost?

Mr. Skinner: That is a relatively small sum compared with £4·6 billion.
I was talking to a friend of one of my constituents today. Apparently, my constituent is in hospital. The hospital

wants to get him out, because it has not enough money and beds—although he is not well enough to leave. It is trying to sort things out at the local authority end to get him out sooner rather than later; and here we are, talking about £4·6 billion that has gone missing. It is the same all over the country.
The Government should pull the business off the Order Paper, and give us a proper explanation. We should be able to deal with the measure later, after January. Why should we allow it to slip through? All the Tories can get the majority, but if they had any decency in their hearts they would not allow it to go through now; they would put it to one side, so that we could deal with it later, when we know precisely how much money there is.

Mrs. Wise: I think that one point has escaped my hon. Friend. There is an increasingly close and important interface between NHS provision for the population's health needs and community provision, which is dealt with via local government. Is my hon. Friend sure that it would not be better for the £4·6 billion—or however much of it remains to be spent—to go to local government, allowing it to remedy some of the faults in community care, rather than being spent for other purposes, however worthy?

Mr. Skinner: I have no doubt of it, but we are living in the real world. We are talking about a Government who have been fiddling community care allowances. They reckon to have spent more money on that, but we know what they were up to: they were shifting the money, so that local authorities now have to find more money than is coming in. My hon. Friend makes an idealistic point—she is idealistic about these matters; I do not expect this lot to take any notice.
Of course some of the money should go to local government. I can think of lots of ways in which we could spend it. We could improve the social fund allowances, instead of losing all the money somewhere in the ether.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend believes that the Government should pull the motion off the Order Paper and bring it back in January. I would like it to be brought back in January so that the Government can explain to us in detail where the part of the £4·6 billion which has already been spent has gone and where the balance of that money is going to be spent. Does not my hon. Friend agree that those who claim that they want to control public expenditure should tell Parliament where they have gone wrong, how much they have spent illegally and where they are going to go right in future?

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend was obviously not listening to me earlier. We all suffer from that from time to time. We make our speeches and then we switch off. However, I will reiterate the point for my hon. Friend's benefit, because he is on the right track.
We know that the figure is "some £4·6 billion". We do not know whether it is precisely £4·6 billion. I suspect that the figure is "some £4·6 billion" because the Government want to leave a little leeway. However, that little bit of leeway could be £5·6 billion. The Government should take the motion away. They should not bring it back to the House tomorrow as that would be to quick. There must be proper examination. The motion should be returned to Parliament after the Christmas recess.
We also want a breakdown of precisely what the £4·6 billion means and the information should be placed in


the Library. We want to know how much has already been spent—if it has been spent. We want to know how much should be allocated for the next financial year. That information should also be placed in the Library. We want to know precisely where in the health service the money has gone; if it has gone there and where it is going in future.
We want to know what projects the money is going to be spent on. It is not good enough for the Government to simply say that it is being spent on the national health service. My Opposition colleagues and I want to know exactly where the money is being spent. How much is going to the Tory spivs who run the health authorities? There should be a register—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are cantering around the course yet again.

Mr. Skinner: There are some hon. Members in the Chamber who have not heard this before. I can tell by their eyes and body language that they are hearing this for the first time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Yes, but I am not hearing it for the first time.

Mr. Skinner: No, you are not and I will tell you something else. I think that you have understood everything that I have said because you have been very quick to point out that you have heard it already. That means that, unlike some of my hon. Friends, you have been listening. Do not get me wrong. That is important for a Deputy Speaker or a Speaker. I have been in the Chair. You have to listen. To sit in the Chair and listen is one of the most irksome duties.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Especially to have to listen to someone like you.

Mr. Skinner: Or to listen to someone like the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce), who bores the pants off nearly everyone when he congratulates the Government every day. Quite frankly, I do not believe that his constituents believe all that tripe. I just wish that,m on occasion, the hon. Gentleman would intervene and have a crack at them. We might be more appreciative then.
You are right, Madam Deputy Speaker. You have been listening and she heard what I said. The new point that I was making was that a breakdown should be placed in the Library. Information about where the money has gone and where it is to be spent should be distributed to everyone. We should know how much is available for the next financial year and whether the totals are correct.

Mrs. Wise: I wonder whether my hon. Friend has given enough weight to the use of the word "deemed" in clause 2(3). I appreciate his suggestion and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South, that the ways and means motion should be temporarily removed from the Order Paper and brought back later. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover agree that, at the same time as bringing back this item deeming the £4·6 billion to have been accumulated, which has apparently been spent without authority, it would be a very good idea for the Government to bring back another piece of retrospective legislation, since they are now into retrospective legislation, which would deem that they had never reduced the top rate of income tax?
Just think how much money would be available for the national health service, community care and the many other things that people are crying out for if they extended the principle of deeming. [Interruption.] Will my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South allow my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover to listen to my point? If they brought forward a retrospective motion deeming that they had never reduced the top rate of tax, that would greatly ease the problems for which that £4·6 billion is intended.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I suggest that the hon. Member for Bolsover does not go down that road.

Mr. Skinner: I am not going down the road that strays from the Bill£[Interruption.] We have set up a proper relationship here, and I am not going to spoil the ship for an ha'p'orth of tar. I shudder when I see the word "deem" —I do not know about anybody else. Every time I see the word, I think, "Hello, money here£solicitors and money." It is a fancy solicitor's word, is it not? One can always guarantee that, where the word "deem" appears, there is a solicitor and some money behind it. I am always a bit worried about that. I think that the word has been introduced to give vagueness and generality to what the Government are trying to say.
I appreciate that we have discovered a scandal of gigantic proportions by the Government. Conservative Members laugh. They think that it is nothing. We are talking about £4·6 billion—retrospectively. People chide us when we talk about giving retrospective payments to others who are living on next to nothing. Conservative Members should tell their constituents that the Government have just discovered another £4·6 billion that they are not sure about—it might be £4·6 billion. It is time that they stopped their laughter, because it is born of arrogance and contempt not only for the House of Commons but for the British people who have had to find such sums.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: One aspect that we might not have to examine for the £4·6 billion is the social fund. I received a letter from my benefit office today, saying that, unfortunately, it is unable to give applications the same priority as it was earlier in the year and that it has therefore had to turn down one of my constituents. That shows that that section of the Department is not spending as much money as it should because it cannot meet demands that it would have granted if they had been made earlier in the year.

Mr. Skinner: I explained earlier that we know some areas where it has not been spent. At the bottom of the matter is that we have only just had a unified Budget. We had a five-day debate on the Budget and on the Queen's Speech, yet—

The Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household (Mr. Greg Knight): rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the Serjeant at Arms please go to the Lobbies, to see if there is any reason for the delay?

The House having divided: Ayes 249, Noes 41.

Division No. 51]
[2.30 am


AYEs


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Alexander, Richard
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Fishburn, Dudley


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Amess, David
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Arbuthnot, James
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
French, Douglas


Ashby, David
Gale, Roger


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Gallie, Phil


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Gardiner, Sir George


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Garnier, Edward


Baldry, Tony
Gillan, Cheryl


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Gorst, John


Bates, Michael
Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)


Batiste, Spencer
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bellingham, Henry
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bendall, Vivian
Grylls, Sir Michael


Beresford, Sir Paul
Hague, William


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Hampson, Dr Keith



Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hannam, Sir John


Booth, Hartley
Hargreaves, Andrew


Boswell, Tim
Harris, David


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Hawkins, Nick


Bowden, Andrew
Hawksley, Warren


Brandreth, Gyles
Hayes, Jerry


Brazier, Julian
Heald, Oliver


Bright, Graham
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Hendry, Charles


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Budgen, Nicholas
Horam, John


Burns, Simon
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Burt, Alistair
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Butcher, John
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Butler, Peter
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Butterfill, John
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hunter, Andrew


Carrington, Matthew
Jack, Michael


Carttiss, Michael
Jenkin, Bernard


Cash, William
Jessel, Toby


Chapman, Sydney
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Clappison, James
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Kilfedder, Sir James


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Knapman, Roger


Coe, Sebastian
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Colvin, Michael
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Congdon, David
Knox, Sir David


Conway, Derek
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Lair, Mrs Jacqui


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Legg, Barry


Couchman, James
Leight, Edward


Cran, James
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Lidington, David


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Lightbown, David


Day, Stephen
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Lord, Michael


Devlin, Tim
Luff, Peter


Dorrell, Stephen
Maclean, David


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
McLoughlin, Patrick


Dover, Den
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Duncan, Alan
Maitland, Lady Olga


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Malone, Gerald


Dunn, Bob
Mans, Keith


Durant, Sir Anthony
Marland, Paul


Elletson, Harold
Marlow, Tony


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Faber, David
Merchant, Piers


Fabricant, Michael
Milligan, Stephen





Mills, Iain
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Spink, Dr Robert


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Spring, Richard


Moate, Sir Roger
Sproat, Iain


Monro, Sir Hector
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Needham, Richard
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Nelson, Anthony
Steen, Anthony


Neubert, Sir Michael
Stephen, Michael


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Stern, Michael


Nicholls, Patrick
Stewart, Allan


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Streeter, Gary


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Sumberg, David


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Sweeney, Walter


Oppenheim, Phillip
Sykes, John


Ottaway, Richard
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Page, Richard
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Paice, James
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Patnick, Irvine
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Thomason, Roy


Pawsey, James
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Pickles, Eric
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Porter, David (Waveney)
Thurnham, Peter


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Powell, William (Corby)
Tredinnick, David


Rathbone, Tim
Trend, Michael


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Twinn, Dr Iain


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Richards, Rod
Viggers, Peter


Riddick, Graham
Walden, George


Robathan, Andrew
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Waller, Bill (N Tayside)


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Waterson, Nigel]


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Watts, John


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Wells, Bowen


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Whitney, Ray


Sackville, Tom
Whittingdale, John


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Widdecombe, Ann


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wilkinson, John


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wiletts, David


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wolfson, Mark


Shersby, Michael
Wood, Mark


Sims, Roger
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)



Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Soames, Nicholas
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and


Speed, Sir Keith
Mr. Andrew MacKay.


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)





NOES


Barnes, Harry
Illsley, Eric


Barron, Kevin
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Beggs, Roy
Jowell, Tessa


Bennett, Andrew F.
Kilfoyle, Peter


Clelland, David
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cryer, Bob
McAllion, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McMaster, Gordon


Davidson, Ian
Mudie, George


Dewar, Donald
Olner, William


Dixon, Don
Pickthall, Colin


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Pike, Peter L.


Enright, Derek
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Etherington, Bill
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Short, Clare


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Skinner, Dennis


Graham, Thomas
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Hall, Mike
Wise, Audrey


Hanson, David
Wray, Jimmy


Heppell, John



Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Tellers for the Noes:


Hood, Jimmy
Mr. Terry Lewis and


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Mr. Eddie Loyden.


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. David Hanson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I sat in the Chamber for the last


two and a half hours of that debate, and I listened with great interest to the contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), for Preston (Mrs. Wise) and for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett)—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We will deal with the main Question first.

Question put accordingly:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Hanson: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance in protecting the rights of the House. Some of us sat through the debate for two hours, waiting to hear the Minister's response to the important points raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover and for Bradford, South. The Government produced a closure motion, which did not allow the Minister to answer those points. Will I, as a Member of Parliament, hear an answer to the important points raised by my hon. Friends, which the Minister refused to answer because of the closure? Will we have an opportunity to learn where the £4·6 billion has been spent and will be spent, and where that money is to come from in future?

Madam Deputy Speaker: In my experience, the ingenuity of hon. Members in acquiring that information does not need further protection from the Chair.

The House having divided: Ayes 251, Noes 37.

Division No. 52]
[2.45 am


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Cash, William


Alexander, Richard
Chapman, Sydney


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Clappison, James


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Amess, David
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Arbuthnot, James
Coe, Sebastian


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Colvin, Michael


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Congdon, David


Ashby, David
Conway, Derek


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Baldry, Tony
Couchman, James


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Cran, James


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Bates, Michael
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Batiste, Spencer
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bellingham, Henry
Day, Stephen


Bendall, Vivian
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Beresford, Sir Paul
Devlin, Tim


Bitten, Rt Hon John
Dorrell, Stephen


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dover, Den


Booth, Hartley
Duncan, Alan


Boswell, Tim
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Dunn, Bob


Bowden, Andrew
Durant, Sir Anthony


Brandreth, Gyles
Elletson, Harold


Brazier, Julian
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Bright, Graham
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Budgen, Nicholas
Faber, David


Burns, Simon
Fabricant, Michael


Burt, Alistair
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Butcher, John
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Butler, Peter
Fishburn, Dudley


Butterfill, John
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Carrington, Matthew
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Carttiss, Michael
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger





French, Douglas
Newton, Rt Tony


Gale, Roger
Nicholls, Patrick


Gallie, Phil
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Gardiner, Sir George
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Garnier, Edward
Oppenheim, Phillip


Gillan, Cheryl
Ottaway, Richard


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Page, Richard


Gorst, John
Paice, James


Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)
Patnick, Irvine


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Pattie, Rt Hon Groffrey


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Pawsey, James


Grylls, Sir Michael
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hague, William
Pickles, Eric


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hannam, Sir John
Powell, William (Corby)


Hargreaves, Andrew
Rathbone, Tim


Harris, David
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hawkins, Nick
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hawksley, Warren
Richards, Rod


Hayes, Jerry
Riddick, Graham


Heald, Oliver
Robathan, Andrew


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Hendry, Charles
Robertson, Raymond (Ad'd'n S)


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Horam, John
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Sackville, Tom


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Scoot, Rt Hon Tim


Hunter, Andrew
Shaw, David, (Dover)


Jack, Michael
Shaw, Sie Giles (Pudsey)


Jenkin, Bernard
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Jessel, Toby
Shersby, Michael


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Sims, Roger


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Kilfedder, Sir James
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Soames, Nicholas


Knapman, Roger
Speed, Sir Keith


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Knox, Sir David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Spink, Dr Robert


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Spring, Richard


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Sproat, Iain


Legg, Barry
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Leigh, Edward
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Steen, Anthony


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Stephen, Michael


Lidington, David
Stern, Michael


Lightbown, David
Stewart, Allan


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Streeter, Gary


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Sumberg, David


Lord, Michael
Sweeney, Walter


Luff, Peter
Sykes, John


MacKay, Andrew
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Maclean, David
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Temple-Morris, Peter


Maitland, Lady Olga
Thomason, Roy


Malone, Gerald
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Mans, Keith
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Marland, Paul
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Marlow, Tony
Thurnham, Peter


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Tredinnick, David


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Trend, Michael


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Merchant, Piers
Viggers, Peter


Milligan, Stephen
Walde, George


Mills, Iain
Walker, Bil (N Tayside)


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Waller, Gary


Moate, Sir Roger
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Monro, Sir Hector
Waterson, Nigel


Moss, Malcolm
Watts, John


Needham, Richard
Wells, Bowen


Nelson, Anthony
Whitney, Ray


Neubert, Sir Michael
Whittingdale, John






Widdecombe, Ann
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Wiggin, Sir Jerry



Wilkinson, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Willetts, David
Mr. Robert G. Hughes and


Wolfson, Mark
Mr. Andrew Mitchell.


Wood, Timothy





NOES


Barnes, Harry
Jowell, Tessa


Clelland, David
Kilfoyle, Peter


Cryer, Bob
Lewis, Terry


Davidson, Ian
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dewar, Donald
McAllion, John


Dixon, Don
McMaster, Gordon


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Mudie, George


Enright, Derek
Olner, William


Etherington, Bill
Pickthall, Colin


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Pike, Peter L.


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Graham, Thomas
Short, Clare


Hall, Mike
Skinner, Dennis


Hanson, David
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Heppell, John
Wise, Audrey


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Wray, Jimmy


Hood, Jimmy



Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Tellers for the Noes:


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Mr. Eddie Loyden and


Illsley, Eric
Mr. Andrew Bennett.


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Social Security (Contributions) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the following provisions —

National health service allocation
(1) In section 162(5) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (destination of contributions: national health service allocation), in paragraph (a) (allocation in case of primary Class 1 contributions) for the words from "the earnings" to the end substitute "so much of the earnings in respect of which those contributions were paid as exceeded the lower earnings limit but did not exceed the upper earnings limit;".
(2) After subsection (6) of that section insert—

"(6A) In the case of earners paid other than weekly, the reference in paragraph (a) of subsection (5) above to the lower or upper earnings limit shall be taken as a reference to the equivalent of that limit prescribed under section 8(3) of the Contributions and Benefits Act.".
(3) The above amendments shall be deemed to have had effect as from the commencement of the 1992 Act; and corresponding amendments to section 134 of the Social Security Act 1975 shall be deemed to have had effect as from the commencement of section 1 of the Social Security Act 1989.

PETITION

Denham Aerodrome (Noise Pollution)

Mr. Richard Page: I present a petition on behalf of the residents of Maple Cross in the district of Three Rivers just north of Denham aerodrome. This petition can be added to several others which have already been presented by hon. Members in the House who represent constituencies to the south, east and west of the aerodrome. The petitioners suffer from the noise pollution of light aircraft using Denham aerodrome, especially those undertaking circuit training and bumps.
Therefore, the petitioners call upon the House to pass legislation as a matter of urgency to implement the provisions of the "Review of Aircraft Noise legislation —Announcement of Conclusions" paper dated March 1993 following the consultation paper "Control of Aircraft Noise" published in August 1991; and that such legislation should establish a range of noise control levels for designated aerodromes, especially those where circuit flying is permitted; that such legislation should include provisions whereby the polluter pays for the cost of remedying any breach of the legislation and meeting any conditions which may be imposed by the lead authority to reduce substantially the noise generated by light aircraft; and that frequency of aircraft engaged in circuits and bumps should be restricted when flying from aerodromes in the vicinity of residential areas and that they be precluded from such operations on all weekends during the months of June to September inclusive; and that the House gives the Secretary of State powers to designate such aerodromes where circuit and bumps are permitted as distinct from those where normal take-offs and landings are permitted for light aircraft travelling between one aerodrome and another.
Wherefore your petitioners will, as in duty bound, ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I beg to move, That strangers do withdraw.

Notice being taken that strangers were present, Madam Deputy Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order No. 143 (Withdrawal of strangers from House), put forthwith the Question, That strangers do withdraw:—

The House divided: Ayes 6, Noes 82.

Division No. 53]
[2.56 am


AYES


Bennett, Andrew F.
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Graham, Thomas



Heppell, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Mudie, George
Mr. Jimmy Wray and


Short, Clare
Mr. Kevin Hughes




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Brandreth, Gyles


Amess, David
Butler, Peter


Arbuthnot, James
Chapman, Sydney


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Cryer, Bob


Bates, Michael
Currie, Mrs, Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Batiste, Spencer
Davidson, Ian


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Dewar, Donald


Booth, Hartley
Dixon, Don


Boswell, Tim
Dover, Den






Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Fabricant, Michael
Moate, Sir Roger


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Gallie, Phil
Nicholls, Patrick


Gillan, Cheryl
Page, Richard


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Paice, James


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Patnick, Irvine


Hague, William
Pawsey, James


Hall, Mike
Pickthall, Eric


Hayes, Jerry
Pickthall, Colin


Heald, Oliver
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hendry, Charles
Richards, Rod


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Robathan, Andrew


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Illsley, Eric
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jack, Michael
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jenkin, Bernard
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Jessel, Toby
Sackville, Tom


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Kilfedder, Sir James
Skinner, Dennis


Kilfoyle, Peter
Smith, Dennis


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Spencer, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Stabley, Rt Hon Sir John


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Steen, Anthony


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Trend, Michael


Lewis, Terry
Whittingdals, John


Lightbown, David
Widdecombe, Ann


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Willetts, David


Loyden, Eddie
Wise, Audrey


Luff, Peter



McMaster, Gordon
Tellers for the Noes:


Maitland, Lady Olga
Mr. Robert G. Hughes and


Malone, Gerald
Mr. Andrew Mitchell.

Question accordingly negatived.

PETITIONS

High Speed Rail Link

Mr. Jacques Arnold: I have the privilege to present to the House a petition signed by 7,722 residents of the borough of Gravesham. They are petitioning that improvements should be made to the proposed route of the high speed rail link as it passes through Kent. The petition shows the very strong feeling that injustice may be done, especially to the residents of Pepper Hill, Northfleet.
I shall paraphrase for the sake of brevity. It prays that the route that skirts the estate of Pepper Hill in a tunnel should go under the electricity substation; that the vertical alignment of the rail link should pass under the A227 Wrotham road, and that the line, as it passes through Singlewell, should be in a tunnel.
It also prays that the high speed rail link should not be designated for freight traffic, thereby avoiding the need for passing loops with their attendant impact on nearby residents. It prays that full consideration be given to the environmental concerns of the residents of the borough of Gravesham in the planning of the entire route as it passes through the borough.
I beg leave to present the petition.

To lie upon the Table.

Clinical Waste Incinerator, Letchworth

Mr. Oliver Heald: I present the petition from the residents of Letchworth and the surrounding area who have formed a group to oppose a proposed clinical waste incinerator in Stotfold road, Letchworth.
Letchworth is the world's garden city and it is proposed to put a clinical waste incinerator with a 75 ft high chimney and a huge building in the green belt on the edge of the town near a school and a large housing estate. Some 19,105 of my constituents fear for their health. They are worried about the pollution that will be caused, the unsightly nature of the development, the noise and traffic, and the fact that the incinerator is to be positioned in the green belt. They have therefore requested
that the House of Commons should invite the Secretary of State for the Environment to call in the planning application for a Clinical Waste Incinerator … and deal with it personally.
They have also requested
the Secretary of State to take full account of the extent of public opinion against the proposal.
The petition concludes:
And your Petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray".

To lie upon the Table.

St. Cross Hospital, Rugby

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Mr. James Pawsey: I thank my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health for so generously and courteously providing me with some of his time. His gesture is much appreciated by me, as well as by my constituents. I am delighted to see that I am supported by some of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), who wishes to be associated with the opposition to the consultative document issued by the Warwickshire health authority as it relates to St. Cross hospital. My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry knows Rugby exceedingly well, and has done so over a considerable period. I am delighted to have his support. I know that he represents several thousand of his constituents.
We are certainly not alone, because with us also is my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), who is sitting in his usual place. I know that, if he is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, that he wishes to make a substantial and, I am certain, worthwhile contribution to our deliberations.
I wish to refer tonight to a consultation document produced by the Warwickshire health authority and the Warwickshire family health services authority that suggests that Rugby St. Cross hospital should be downgraded from a general to a local hospital. St. Cross has benefited extensively from recent health reforms. In the early 1980s, Rugby became a health authority in its own right—a measure for which I can take considerable personal credit. As a result, a new maternity unit was built, together with a new pathology laboratory, improved operating theatres and wards, a new boiler room and kitchens, and even additional facilities at Admirals Court for those who are mentally handicapped. The hospital was transformed.
Three years ago trust status was introduced and, not surprisingly, Rugby was once more in the forefront and was in the first wave. It benefited substantially with a £17 million extension in geriatric and psychiatric care. The hospital of St. Cross now provides an excellent service to my constituents and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Blaby and for Daventry. It serves a population of about 110,000 people.
I recently wrote to every GP who uses St. Cross and all, without exception, said that they oppose any reduction in the current quality and type of service. One GP said:
I am heavy user of the St. Cross laboratory facilities. I, like you, feel the hospital of St. Cross is essential in its current format for the wellbeing of the local community".
A second GP wrote:
Our business plan from the very outset included specific wording in which we expressed our support for St. Cross and our intention to continue referring unless there were overriding other considerations. We did not believe that the quality of service would be particularly increased by sending patients further afield".
Incidentally, I am delighted to see that my right hon. Friend that Leader of the House is now present for this important Adjournment debate. His presence does not surprise me, as I know that he is an assiduous listener on such occasions. I am delighted to welcome him.
A third GP writes:

We are a fund holding practice and we use St. Cross for 76 per cent. of our in-patient activity and 96 per cent. of our out-patient activity, so you can see that any down-grading of St. Cross would seriously affect our patients.
A fourth GP writes as follows:
As a fund holding practice we make considerable use of St. Cross. The practice are very happy to support in whatever way we can the campaign to ensure that St. Cross stays open.
A fifth tells me:
If the proposed changes go ahead at St. Cross hospital, it will result in a vastly reduced standard of medical care for the people of Rugby and surrounding areas.
I strongly support those informed medical views. The House will understand that here are doctors speaking, not simply members of the public. I do not say that in any disparaging way. I merely seek to draw the attention of the House to the views expressed by those who know best the importance of our local hospital.
I argue that the consultation exercise and the consultation document are inept. The document, which is interestingly entitled
Tell us what you think about future health authorities in Warwickshire",
was not sent to the Rugby NHS trust or, indeed, to Members of Parliament. I put it to the House that that was a studied act of discourtesy. The trust actually had to ask the local press for a copy of the consultative document, and I, in turn, only received my copy from the trust as a photostat. I put it to my hon. Friend the Minister that that scarcely constitutes helpful or efficient consultation by the health authority.
On receipt of the document, I immediately wrote to the chief executive of the Warwickshire health authority and to the Warwickshire FHSA. I reminded them that waiting lists at St. Cross are better than average and that the quality of health care is indeed much appreciated by patients and their families. I said that for St. Cross to be fundamentally changed in the way suggested by the Government would be an act of health service vandalism. I have not changed my declared view. The hospital would lose all emergency orthopaedics and trauma, and all emergency work in general surgery and gynaecology. The accident and emergency service would be reduced to a daytime-only minor injury service.
The document asks whether people in Warwickshire would be prepared to travel a little further. I suppose that everything hinges on how "little" is defined. In the case of my constituents, that would mean travelling to Nuneaton or Coventry or Leamington Spa—considerable distances in each case. Incidentally, the estimated additional cost to the ambulance service has been estimated by the chairman of the Rugby NHS trust as more than £500,000 annually. I will return to the question of added ambulance costs a little later in my speech.
I know that my hon. Friend the Minister will agree that there is a much more important issue than cost, and that is time. So often in health matters, speed is the essence of recovery; for my constituents, a longer journey to get to any one of three other hospitals could literally mean the difference between life and death. The document says that the length of time that people have to wait for hospital treatment might be reduced by concentrating some services in fewer locations. That is much easier said than done. It suggests that there is some spare medical capacity. If there is no spare capacity, new build will be required, which seems an inefficient way of using scarce resources.
I was interested to read in the document, under the heading, "Our Role As Purchasers":


Our ability to influence services arises from the fact that we are a major purchaser of them.
This is the big stick. So much for patient choice or for fundholder choice. It clearly does not matter what patients or GPs want; the health authority knows best. I can see my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry nodding in agreement. He and I know this hospital and many of the GPs involved. It would clearly be most unfortunate if the health authority were to decide which services were to be provided and where. That precept undermines one of the fundamental principles that has been laid down by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Elsewhere, the document says:
We feel"—
note the word that is used—
that we cannot continue to buy the present level of hospital services in Rugby. The problem is that individual hospital specialties are relatively small and potentially more expensive than the same specialties provided in Coventry and Nuneaton.
I ask the House to note the word "potentially". The authority clearly does not know what costs are involved, but that did not stop it issuing a document that has caused the utmost worry and concern to my constituents and to those of my hon. Friends the Members for Daventry and for Blaby. I should like to emphasise the strength of that concern.
The health authority, I was advised only this week, has so far received more than 13,000 letters all opposing its proposals. A petition has been raised and it bears more than 90,000 signatures. In addition, public meetings have been arranged and attended by literally thousands of my frightened constituents. I organised a meeting on 5 November and 750 people attended inside the hall—its maximum capacity—and a further 500 were outside. Of those 500, 200 were still present an hour and a half later when I went out to address them, having completed the meeting inside. A march was organised and attended by more than 3,000 people. I have received well over 600 letters on this one specific issue.
I was elected Member of Parliament for Rugby in 1979, 14 years ago. I have never known such a spontaneous expression of anger and outrage as that caused by the Warwickshire health authority's document.
I referred to the concerns that were expressed by GPs. They are not alone. Warwickshire county council carried an unanimous resolution expressing
total opposition to any reduction in the range, level and quality of general hospital services in Rugby.
Rugby borough council, at a meeting last night, approved the following:
That this council totally opposes the implementation of all suggestions outlined for Rugby in the Warwickshire Health Authority's consultative document and furthermore requires that all services which are currently provided by the hospital of St. Cross be maintained.
I should like to quote a letter from North East Warwickshire community health council. In its letter addressed to me and dated 29 November, it says:
My council received the Discussion Document … and were unanimously of the view that essentailly they would not wish to see the present pattern of purchasing of health care changed within Warwickshire.
St. Cross is close to the Ml, the M6, the M45 and the Al-M1 link. I need hardly remind the House of the incidence of motorway accidents, and the need to get victims to hospital as quickly as possible. The fact that St. Cross is likely to lose its acute services, and the fact that its accident and emergency services are likely to be

substantially downgraded, will not help those who lie injured on motorways, even if they live or are outside Warwickshire.
This evening, my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry handed me a letter that he had received from the Two Shires ambulance MHS trust. It is dated 6 December. I was interested to read the following:
There are large sections of the motorway"—
the M1, that is—
the A5 and A45 where road accidents are taken to the Rugby hospital. From an Ambulance Service point of view, it would mean that when an emergency crew is deployed to be patient in the north of the constituency, it would be committed much longer to taking the patients to either Coventry, Nuneaton or Stratford on Avon. This would mean that additional emergency crews would need to be employed at an approved cost of £150,000 which needs to be considered against the savings made by reducing the service at St. Cross.
I remind hon. Members that £150,000 is additional to the figure of £500,000 that I mentioned earlier, which was quoted to me by the chairman of the Rugby NHS trust.
So far, I have met Ministers—here again, I must acknowledge the courtesy that I have received from my hon. Friend the Minister, who has been very helpful. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has also given me advice, and has listened to my arguments: I am grateful to him for his courtesy. I have met the chairman and chief executive of Warwickshire health authority, and the chairman of the regional health authority; I have condemned the health authority's ill-considered proposals absolutely. Let me make it abundantly clear that I will oppose them in every way I can, both inside and outside the House.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: I welcome the opportunity to support my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey). I also welcome the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick), who has a special interest in the issue: I believe that a friend of his was in the hospital concerned.
As the House will know, my constituency stretches from the outskirts of Leicester in the north to the Warwickshire and Northamptonshire border in the south. In the north, we have three excellent hospitals, all of them in Leicester: Leicester royal infirmary, Leicester general and the Glenfield. All three have become NHS trusts in the recent past and are now progressing extremely well. Indeed, Leicester itself is very well served by its hospitals. I have visited Leicester general and the Glenfield in the past month and was greatly impressed by all that I saw of the new trust hospitals.
The south of my constituency—parts of which are some 25 miles from Leicester—is a largely rural area. There, it is a very different story. There is an excellent local hospital in Lutterworth, but, for a general hospital dealing with accidents and emergencies, my constituents look to Rugby.
In the south-west of the constituency, many villagers and residents have Rugby telephone numbers. They shop in Rugby; they use Rugby station; and, of course, they use St. Cross hospital in Rugby. If the accident and emergency service is taken away, my constituents will have to travel not the five miles—perhaps—to Rugby, but as many as 20 miles to Leicester, Coventry or Nuneaton, which is even further. That is not acceptable, either in regard to the time


factor—people should not have to rush to deal with some acute necessity in an emergency—or as a service to the local community.
If the Government's NHS reforms are to be successful, they must be perceived to be successful. The Rugby NHS trust—St. Cross hospital—was in the first wave of NHS trusts. It has been a great success and an example to the country. A parish councillor wrote to me saying:
I myself spent a considerable time as an inpatient last year in St. Cross hospital and I was very impressed, not only by the enthusiasm of the staff for their newly acquired trust status but also by the professional and caring attitude shown.
There is no doubt that St. Cross is a success as a hospital for the area and as a trust.
As a Leicestershire Member, I would not presume to dictate to Warwickshire health authority how it should run its affairs. My role is to speak for the needs and interests of my constituents in south-west Leicestershire. Their interests are undoubtedly best served by a first-class general hospital in Rugby.
The proposals to downgrade the hospital to local status are unwise. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will join me in asking Warwickshire health authority to reconsider the proposals and keep St. Cross as a general hospital for all the people in the area—for those in Rugby and also those in the south-west of my constituency.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr.. Pawsey) on securing the debate in the ballot and on getting this far procedurally. I came to the House at 6 am yesterday. One of the more excitable Conservative Members used the procedure known as "I spy Strangers" and we ended up with no Adjournment debate. That was the end of my sleep. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth was confronted by the same problem this evening, but he defeated that ploy as a result of the large number of hon. Members around the House who were waiting to hear his debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend on that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth has described the importance of the matter to him and to his constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) also explained the importance of the hospital for his patients who use the hospital.
The purchaser, the health authority for the county of Warwickshire, has issued a discussion document in which it raises the possibility, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth said, of downgrading Rugby hospital. Let us recap briefly on a purchaser's role.
The activity of purchasers has now been entirely separated from hospital management. The job of the bodies with the budget for the health needs of the people in their areas is to purchase the health services required by the people in that area. The purchasers have to take decisions based on that. They are now powerful bodies as the have most of the purchasing budget.
Budget-holding GPs also have influence, but the main influence on health services will increasingly be the purchaser, health authority or health commission in each area, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth said. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of

State for Health has said, the abolition of health regions places an even greater onus on the smaller number of health authorities now that there are more mergers of health authorities.
The purchaser's duty is to balance the needs of residents in each area in terms of access and proximity to general hospitals or other health services with other matters, which will sometimes include questions of cost.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth pointed out, quoting from the discussion document which has led to the debate, that costs have increased. My hon. Friend pointed out also that it has said that the costs of the Rugby hospital, specialties being relatively small, are potentially more expensive. That is the key word, because it has obviously taken the view that there could be an element of costs involved. Those matters have to be balanced by the people who have to make such choices.
The fact that my hon. Friend has said that fund-holding GPs wish to use the hospital and do use the hospital, and of course have the same cost pressures on them, is important because they are taking decisions to use the hospital, which might be a very good sign. However, when such matters come to Ministers, that is not always the case. It is only when there is a major change of services and there are objections from the local community health council that we see such proposals and have to balance all those factors.
My hon. Friend has made a strong case for his constituents who wish to continue to use the hospital and that is an important factor which must play a central role in any discussion of the nature and location of services in an area. I congratulate him on having put the case so strongly.
As my hon. Friend said, and as I have repeated, it is a discussion document, not a statutory proposal. The health authority, in its wisdom, has decided that it should have an additional stage in the procedure. Instead of just coming up with a proposal and putting it out for statutory consultation, it has come up with a document which raises certain possibilities and it has asked people to comment. People have clearly commented—my hon. Friend commented tonight. He has received a great many letters on the subject and I can confirm that we also have received an unusually large correspondence. Those matters must be taken into account.
My hon. Friend will understand, I hope, when I tell him that I cannot comment in detail on this matter because it has not come to Ministers for consideration, but I should like to make two general statements about it. First, my hon. friend, as the local Member of Parliament, has an important voice in the matter and he has used that voice to great effect tonight. Secondly, in any matter to do with intentions, health authorities—this is not just about Warwickshire, it is about others—cannot just act in isolation and come up with ideas that they have plucked out of the air; they must take people with them and that includes local Members of Parliament.
I am sorry to hear that my hon. Friend was not sent a copy of the document. That was remiss of the health


authority. I have no doubt that it has taken steps to make amends. The health authority has to take local Members of Parliament and other representatives with it. I assure my hon. Friend that I am certain that the health authority will listen very hard to local voices and that what has been said in the House tonight will be an important contribution to that debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes to Four o'clock.